TR Forums

Glorious wrote:

JBI wrote:

Would you be willing to pay a lower rate in exchange for being locked in to a contract? That would level the playing field, and be the most "fair" to everyone.

Yes! That is the relevant question here. If he can't do that, then he'd have a much more reasonable complaint.

But, of course, one can easily imagine how legal and practical difficulties could preclude such a option.

YES! I'm in the boat of shopping for new cell phones, and that's what I want! I want the cheapest "feature phone," which I will shop for and pay for myself, and I want to lock in a lower rate since there is no subsidized cell phone. A savings of $15/month for 2 years ($360 total) buys a pretty nice phone, and any time after that at the lower rate is money in my pocket. I've only had 2 cell phones since 1996.

sweatshopking wrote:

except you can't pay as you go on a smartphone, otherwise i'd be all over that. I haven't had a cell for YEARS, but with my wife working now, and being on the road a lot, we'd like to have one.

And theres your problem. You want to be just like all the other cool kids and have a smartphone. But do you REALLY need it? Probably not. While I love my iPhone I know that I am getting raped over so I dont complain. Why? Because its not going to change Jack S**T.

Lastly for those that like to hop providers all the time. You hate ATT so you go to Verizon. Verizon pisses you off you go to Sprint. Sprint doesnt have the areas covered so back to ATT. Quit doing that! All providers are pretty much the same and if not just wait a few months because they will offer it. (see tiered plans)

I have been with Bellsouth wireless -> Bellsouth -> Cingular -> At&t since 1996. I have some god aweful grandfather plan that hasnt been offered for years. And everytime I call customer Service they try to move me off of it. Last time I told them that I would go if they gave me a free iPhone 4. They wouldnt do it. Anyways the moral is because I have been a long time customer I am costing them money!

There are just some things you dont play the jump game with and Cell phone providers is one of them.

JBI wrote:

Doesn't seem that difficult to me; how is it significantly more difficult than the current system?

As everyone knows, I am not a lawyer.

Without the cellphone part of the deal wireless carriers are going to have a very difficult time justifying the liquidated damages clause in their contracts. Courts generally frown on those, and without the upfront purchase of a depreciating asset by the carrier, their liability for the customer's breach of the contract will simply and obviously be the value of the discount prorated by time.

In other words, the courts will probably not let them charge you a several hundred dollar early termination fee if their actual damages are like 25 dollars worth of a discount because the customer breached the contract within two months. And that's if you count the discount as completely non-ephemeral, which the courts might not.

With the phone, however, the clause is more justifiable. The carriers bought their customer something that is expensive and fashionable. Getting it back doesn't return the original value, or even an easily predicted portion of it; there is no "blue book" for smartphones. So they can't really quantify their damages with any accuracy OR consistency.

Without meaningful enforcement, the contract doesn't really mean anything.

There is also the issue of a lack of concrete consideration from the company to the customer. With the phone, it's obvious: the phone. Without it, the "consideration" the company passes is only a discount. That might be problematic.

tanker27 wrote:

sweatshopking wrote:

except you can't pay as you go on a smartphone, otherwise i'd be all over that. I haven't had a cell for YEARS, but with my wife working now, and being on the road a lot, we'd like to have one.

And theres your problem. You want to be just like all the other cool kids and have a smartphone. But do you REALLY need it? Probably not. While I love my iPhone I know that I am getting raped over so I dont complain. Why? Because its not going to change Jack S**T.

Lastly for those that like to hop providers all the time. You hate ATT so you go to Verizon. Verizon pisses you off you go to Sprint. Sprint doesnt have the areas covered so back to ATT. Quit doing that! All providers are pretty much the same and if not just wait a few months because they will offer it. (see tiered plans)

I have been with Bellsouth wireless -> Bellsouth -> Cingular -> At&t since 1996. I have some god aweful grandfather plan that hasnt been offered for years. And everytime I call customer Service they try to move me off of it. Last time I told them that I would go if they gave me a free iPhone 4. They wouldnt do it. Anyways the moral is because I have been a long time customer I am costing them money!

There are just some things you dont play the jump game with and Cell phone providers is one of them.

What I need is irrelevant. that's neither here nor there. The fact is, the "market" fails to provide competitive pricing. and for those whining that they "need to make money" are foolish. Bell and telus have been posting record profits every quarter for years. they're gouging, no question. as for the "population density argument, that is also false. 90% of canada's population is within 100 miles of the US border, which also happens to be where 95% of the cell coverage is. the only exception being alberta, which has coverage over most of the province. As for your willingness to take it up the ass, tanker, the ease of which you take it makes me confused. I don't understand why you don't complain. that's the ONLY way any of it is going to change. Maybe not with the cell companies, but that's what government is for.

In a situation, where I provided my own phone, and they offered me a discount to take contract, i might. however, there is no such offer available. while i understand that having a contract allows for them to guarantee income, and the value of having such a thing, I don't agree that without them subsidizing my phone, i should have to pay the additional fees that go along getting a new phone. I further don't understand why you would defend a system that has led to market collusion, lack of choice, and allowed monopolies to build. You're right, not having everyone hooked to a contract would cost them money. the alternative would be for them to, like in europe, actually compete, and offer real service and value for the money; which is something nobody here does.

sweatshopking wrote:

What I need is irrelevant.

No it is not. What you have described is a WANT not a NEED. You WANT a smartphone. You NEED water, winter clothes, and food. Life is about balancing you wants against your needs. Until you do that can you really live happily.

I understand the injustice but really theres nothing you can do. Well, petition your legislature to enact some law I guess. /Shrug

SSK wrote:

The fact is, the "market" fails to provide competitive pricing.

Competitive to what? Your imagination?

SSK wrote:

and for those whining that they "need to make money" are foolish

What's foolish is thinking that people are going to be willing to invest in cellphone companies that don't make a profit.

SSK wrote:

In a situation, where I provided my own phone, and they offered me a discount to take contract, i might. however, there is no such offer available.

Have you asked?

SSK wrote:

while i understand that having a contract allows for them to guarantee income, and the value of having such a thing,

No, you don't.

SSK wrote:

I don't agree that without them subsidizing my phone, i should have to pay the additional fees that go along getting a new phone.

Then don't.

Also, you're contradicting yourself. The customers getting a new phone with a long-term contract aren't paying "additional fees." Your ENTIRE POINT is that they pay the same as you, the bloke who brought his own phone and doesn't have a contract.

SSK wrote:

I further don't understand why you would defend a system that has led to market collusion, lack of choice, and allowed monopolies to build.

Canada is second only to the United States in the amount of available wireless carriers. Once again, the "competition" is your imagination.

SSK wrote:

You're right, not having everyone hooked to a contract would cost them money.

That's the wrong way to think about it. Rather, customers without contracts are less valuable.

SSK wrote:

the alternative would be for them to, like in europe, actually compete, and offer real service and value for the money; which is something nobody here does.

1. Europe has less wireless carriers
2. Europe has different plans.

"Competition" with your imagination is meaningless.

tanker27 wrote:

sweatshopking wrote:

What I need is irrelevant.

No it is not. What you have described is a WANT not a NEED. You WANT a smartphone. You NEED water, winter clothes, and food. Life is about balancing you wants against your needs. Until you do that can you really live happily.

I understand the injustice but really theres nothing you can do. Well, petition your legislature to enact some law I guess. /Shrug

I understand the difference between want and need. what i'm saying is that whether i need a cell phone at all is of course a NO. it's always a want. Cellphones don't keep me alive, i'm saying that since cell phones are a want, there is not a company selling what i WANT at a fair price.

sweatshopking wrote:

tanker27 wrote:

sweatshopking wrote:

What I need is irrelevant.

No it is not. What you have described is a WANT not a NEED. You WANT a smartphone. You NEED water, winter clothes, and food. Life is about balancing you wants against your needs. Until you do that can you really live happily.

I understand the injustice but really theres nothing you can do. Well, petition your legislature to enact some law I guess. /Shrug

I understand the difference between want and need. what i'm saying is that whether i need a cell phone at all is of course a NO. it's always a want. Cellphones don't keep me alive, i'm saying that since cell phones are a want, there is not a company selling what i WANT at a fair price.

If there are no companies selling what you want at a fair price, then simply don't buy it. Or, as some have already suggested, call your company of choice and ask them to give you a deal - you might be surprised.

Regarding the subsidy of cellphones, the reason a company gives you a phone at a greatly reduced price when you sign a contract is simple: By signing a contract, you are making a long-term commitment. Companies like long-term commitments because it makes for consistent cash flow; that's why they also tend to charge you less money per month with a contract. Because having a consistent cash flow is important enough to them that it makes sense, from their perspective, to entice buyers with lower prices; just as it makes sense from their perspective to offer you a phone at a greatly reduced price.

sweatshopking wrote:

while i understand that having a contract allows for them to guarantee income, and the value of having such a thing, I don't agree that without them subsidizing my phone, i should have to pay the additional fees that go along getting a new phone.

And what "additional fees" might those be? What are they in addition to? We've already established (I think...) that the typical cell phone user is receiving a subsidized phone in exchange for letting the provider lock them into a contract; there's no difference in fees involved.

sweatshopking wrote:

I further don't understand why you would defend a system that has led to market collusion, lack of choice, and allowed monopolies to build. You're right, not having everyone hooked to a contract would cost them money. the alternative would be for them to, like in europe, actually compete, and offer real service and value for the money; which is something nobody here does.

IMO this is a separate issue. AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile is just one more step down the path back to the situation we had prior to the government mandated breakup of the original AT&T. We're not back to that situation yet, but if current trends continue we may yet get there.

Given that the wireless market isn't a monopoly (yet), a more reasonable view would be that nobody offers the sort of plan you're asking for simply because there isn't enough demand for it; i.e. most other people consider the lack of contract lock-in to be sufficient compensation for providing their own phone. Your argument (paraphrased) is nothing more than "Nobody is willing to offer me a discount off my rate in lieu of a free phone... WHAAAH!"

This thread illustrates basically why you can't get what you want. Just like supplanting and replacing our entire government, the only way the changes you are asking for will come about is by either a) everyone immediately stop using their smartphones (iphone users, this means you) or b) everyone switch to companies like MetroPCS whenever possible.

Oh you don't like it? Tough. As long as they post a billion dollar profit this year they don't give a rats patootey.

I suggest you get a cheap phone, a cheap GPS, and a cheap android tablet, download free wifi hotspots in the POI settings on your GPS and go on about your business like that. If you want it all in one device conastantly connected, then pay the !@#$!@$# price. No one is forcing you to live a life of luxury that literally 75% of the world can only DREAM of. But if you want to you'll have to pony up the price.

Its like the old saying, if you have to ask how much it would cost, you can't afford it anyway.

Glorious wrote:

]

1. Europe has less wireless carriers
2. Europe has different plans.

"Competition" with your imagination is meaningless.

No. It's not. The fact of the matter is, regardless of how many companies there actually are on paper, there is very little competition in Canada. Take Ontario, which accounts for about 1/3 of Canada's population. There is Bell and there is Rogers. That is practically it. And they do colllude to keep the pricing status quo. They even have the audacity to refer to themselves as "the blue team" and "the red team" in their own advertisements - as if no other carriers existed (which, again, is practically true). Sure there are a dozen other wireless companies (ie, solo mobile, kodo, chattr, ect), but these all run on either Roger's or Bell's networks (mostly Bell's). Some of these "competitors" are actually owned by Rogers or Bell (ie, Rogers owns Chattr and Bell owns Solo, etc). Even Telus uses Bell's network in eastern Canada.

Yes there are the new Mobilicity and Wind that use their own network, but these are still establishing companies and only available in restricted areas. If you go outside these areas, you are again dependent on Roger's network. It is because these two telco giants own essesntially all the networks in Ontario that saps the market of any real competition. Maybe companies like Mobilicity and Wind can change this in the next few years, but so far, I'm not holding my breath.

And yes, the whole point of offering the shiny new phone is for leverage to lock you into a contract, usually for 3 years. Which more than pays for the couple hundred dollars Rogers or Bell forks out for the phone up front. My gf had 14 months left on a 3 year Bell contract and called in to see how much it would cost her to get out of it early. The answer was $720. For breaking the contract 14 months early. That speaks volumes in itself.

thank you cynan. somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. Airmantharp is at least interested in having a discussion.

sweatshopking wrote:

thank you cynan. somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. Airmantharp is at least interested in having a discussion.

And you wonder why people dislike you.

Everyone here knows what they are talking about because they have said cellphones. Not everyone sympathizes with you. There have been suggestions as to what you can do from calling your provider and asking for a discount (Haggling does work at times, if not at first with one person keep trying) to the alternative of contract-less pay as you go "go phones". You just ignore it.

sweatshopking wrote:

thank you cynan. somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. Airmantharp is at least interested in having a discussion.

"People who give me answers I want to hear are having a productive discussion; people who don't give me answers I want to hear don't know what they're talking about."

If people aren't understanding your question, maybe it's because your question was badly phrased. Maybe.

cynan wrote:

No. It's not. The fact of the matter is, regardless of how many companies there actually are on paper, there is very little competition in Canada. Take Ontario, which accounts for about 1/3 of Canada's population. There is Bell and there is Rogers. That is practically it. And they do colllude to keep the pricing status quo. They even have the audacity to refer to themselves as "the blue team" and "the red team" in their own advertisements - as if no other carriers existed (which, again, is practically true). Sure there are a dozen other wireless companies (ie, solo mobile, kodo, chattr, ect), but these all run on either Roger's or Bell's networks (mostly Bell's). Some of these "competitors" are actually owned by Rogers or Bell (ie, Rogers owns Chattr and Bell owns Solo, etc). Even Telus uses Bell's network in eastern Canada.

Am I supposed to just not notice that you have completely failed to make a comparison between Canada and anywhere else?

Do you seriously fail to grasp the import of my point, which is that you are comparing Canada's situation to your imagination?

Pray tell, just where is this wonderous nation in which there are more than 2-3 major operators with signficant price differentiation? Where the small operators all have their own national networks and are completely independent of the major players?

cynan wrote:

Yes there are the new Mobilicity and Wind that use their own network, but these are still establishing companies and only available in restricted areas. If you go outside these areas, you are again dependent on Roger's network. It is because these two telco giants own essesntially all the networks in Ontario that saps the market of any real competition. Maybe companies like Mobilicity and Wind can change this in the next few years, but so far, I'm not holding my breath.

My question to you is this: Would you invest in a company that was aiming to the be even the third (much less the fourth or fifth) completely independent cellphone network that covered virtually all of Ontario?

If yes, please explain to me why.

If no, please explain to me why you expect someone else to do so.

cynan wrote:

And yes, the whole point of offering the shiny new phone is for leverage to lock you into a contract, usually for 3 years. Which more than pays for the couple hundred dollars Rogers or Bell forks out for the phone up front. My gf had 14 months left on a 3 year Bell contract and called in to see how much it would cost her to get out of it early. The answer was $720. For breaking the contract 14 months early. That speaks volumes in itself.

If it more than pays for the cellphone, it's quite clearly a bad deal and SSK should be HAPPY he doesn't have one. This point of yours undermines SSK's entire complaint.

Just to completely spell it out, if it's only 200 dollars up front for 3 years of service, that's a "discount" of 5.50 a month. If SSK wants to "save" 5.50 a month by signing a THREE year contract with a ETF of 720, he's crazy.

He'd be "saving" 5.50 PER month (i.e. over time) at the price of paying a MINIMUM of $20 A month (i.e. immediately) if he breaks the contract.

EDIT: Changed year to month, as that's what I meant. Thanks JBI!

Glorious wrote:

He'd be "saving" 5.50 PER month over time at the price of paying a MINIMUM of $20 A year immediately if he breaks the contract.

I assume you meant $20/month...

tanker27 wrote:

sweatshopking wrote:

thank you cynan. somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. Airmantharp is at least interested in having a discussion.

And you wonder why people dislike you.

Everyone here knows what they are talking about because they have said cellphones. Not everyone sympathizes with you. There have been suggestions as to what you can do from calling your provider and asking for a discount (Haggling does work at times, if not at first with one person keep trying) to the alternative of contract-less pay as you go "go phones". You just ignore it.

I don't wonder why people dislike me. I know why people find me irritating. I do it cause it's fun. I'm not going to stop being silly, because a bunch of nerds online find it annoying.

That being said, I still don't get what your saying. many (not all) have been arguing with absolutely no knowledge of the Canadian cell phone, and then defending taking it up the ass. Even ACKNOWLEDGING they're getting it up the ass, and saying I SHOULD BE HAPPY TO GET IT IN THE ASS TOO.

My question has been explained many times, and I don't understand how people could possibly get so confused, or defend the cell companies. they're HORRIBLE. we have the MOST expensive cell phone plans in the developed world, in Canada, and yet I should be HAPPY for the chance to pay that?

As for the ETF, 720$ is criminal, but I don't see how me not having to PAY TO CANCEL A CONTRACT I DIDN'T SIGN IS A DEAL. I'll give you a deal right now, i'll give you a 10$ discount on canceling a contract between me and you that YOU never signed. just pay me 100$, and you can walk away! HOW HAVE I SAVED YOU ANY MONEY?! HOW IS THAT A DEAL?!?!? I HAVE MY OWN FRIGGIN CELL PHONE. I PAY THEM A FORTUNE TO USE THEIR TOWERS, HOW IS NOT PAYING A FEE FOR SOMETHING I NEVER AGREED TO A DISCOUNT?!?!? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?! SERIOUSLY?! YOU'RE MENTALLY CHALLENGED!!

Who cares about investing? this isn't about investing. I don't give a rats ass about their investors. that's THEIR concern. My concern is as a consumer. I want cheaper, they want more expensive. it's how a business works, you can google it if you like. The problem is, they charge whatever they want, and get away with it. It's not a NEED. obviously. Duh.

tanker27 wrote:

sweatshopking wrote:

thank you cynan. somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. Airmantharp is at least interested in having a discussion.

And you wonder why people dislike you.

Everyone here knows what they are talking about because they have said cellphones. Not everyone sympathizes with you. There have been suggestions as to what you can do from calling your provider and asking for a discount (Haggling does work at times, if not at first with one person keep trying) to the alternative of contract-less pay as you go "go phones". You just ignore it.

You have absolutely contributed nothing to this discussion. heres why:

1. none of these guys know jack about the canadian market.
2. I've already said prices are fixed and identical. that's super cool that you can haggle in the states. as a new customer, in Canada, they tell you to check the website for any deals, and that the companies do not negotiate. if you knew anything about the canadian market, rather than talking out your ass, you'd know that.
3. what good does a pay as you go phone do me. i've already said, numerous times, THAT I DON'T NEED A CONTRACT, I'LL BE GOING MONTH TO MONTH, SO WHAT ADVANTAGE DOES A PAY AS YOU GO BRING?!?!?! WHAT?!!?! IT BRINGS NO ADVANTAGE AT ALL, EXCEPT I'D NEED TO BUY ANOTHER PHONE. WOW!!! THAT'D BE SUPER!!

THANK GOD you came to weigh in on this discussion tanker, man, you sure cleared up my confusion.

I'm not trying to be a dick, i just don't understand WTF you're thinking. pretty much any of you. if you like a sore ass this much, hell give me your addresses, i'll come by and make it even "better".

You're acting as if Canada has this super secret high tech cell network that no one else has. Your situation isnt much different from those of us in the U.S. And by your responses I gather you dont have a clue as to how it all works. My guess is you talked to a salesperson and said "I want to do XYZ" and they said "you cant do XYZ" and when you rebutted "well why cant I" they proceeded to tell you why but because you were inconvenienced it all went over your head. And instead of staying calm and asking, "Well what can you do for me?" and being nice about it; you went on this blind rant on them and then turned to some nerd-forum trying to gain sympathy.

We all offered alternatives. Again, YOU ignore them.

sweatshopking wrote:

1. none of these guys know jack about the canadian market.
2. I've already said prices are fixed and identical. that's super cool that you can haggle in the states. as a new customer, in Canada, they tell you to check the website for any deals, and that the companies do not negotiate. if you knew anything about the canadian market, rather than talking out your ass, you'd know that.
3. what good does a pay as you go phone do me. i've already said, numerous times, THAT I DON'T NEED A CONTRACT, I'LL BE GOING MONTH TO MONTH, SO WHAT ADVANTAGE DOES A PAY AS YOU GO BRING?!?!?! WHAT?!!?! IT BRINGS NO ADVANTAGE AT ALL, EXCEPT I'D NEED TO BUY ANOTHER PHONE. WOW!!! THAT'D BE SUPER!!

1> See my previous post.
2> I am throwing the BS flag. After reading numerous rants of yours I can firmly bet your not a nice person when you are told 'No'. You probably get all ugly and inconvenienced which in turn closes that do for any chance of getting something good.
3> By that comment you have no clue as how a Pay as you go phone works. you Pay as you go! No contract, nothing! You pay for the exact minutes/data you use, not some block plan. There are even Pay as you go smart phones! OMG thats a shocker!

Infact comparing the plans offered by various companies list here. They aren't much different from the U.S. companies. Now, not having memorized exchange rates or knowing what taxes and VAT are imposed on Canadians, then yes this can make a difference.

As a Canadian mobile phone customer, I do know you can haggle to a point. I'm with Rogers for 2 lines, contract ended a few weeks ago, mulling over which of the 3 bad choices I want to give money to for 3 years. I want a shiny new google phone offered on by one carrier and my female partner wants another shiny google phone offered by another carrier. She called Telus and said she wanted to activate 2 lines "What kind of deal can you give me?" They said nothing. "Here's what we have take it or leave it." She said "I want free call display" (8 bucks a month on top of any plan you get) She got a big no. She wrote a nasty email saying "you've made my decision easier, off we go to the competition". Shortly after they did offer us a year of free call display on both lines should we go with them. Anyways that's my mumbling rant. - You can negotiate, you just have to work at it. This could be very different as you own the phone now, but it can't hurt to try.

I do wish we had a better situation here in Canada in this regard. But we don't. Time to invest in telco shares.

SSK wrote:

As for the ETF, 720$ is criminal, but I don't see how me not having to PAY TO CANCEL A CONTRACT I DIDN'T SIGN IS A DEAL. I'll give you a deal right now, i'll give you a 10$ discount on canceling a contract between me and you that YOU never signed. just pay me 100$, and you can walk away! HOW HAVE I SAVED YOU ANY MONEY?! HOW IS THAT A DEAL?!?!? I HAVE MY OWN FRIGGIN CELL PHONE. I PAY THEM A FORTUNE TO USE THEIR TOWERS, HOW IS NOT PAYING A FEE FOR SOMETHING I NEVER AGREED TO A DISCOUNT?!?!? WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?! SERIOUSLY?! YOU'RE MENTALLY CHALLENGED!!

The relevant point is this: If the 3 year contract with bundled phone is not, in fact, "a deal", than you cannot sanely argue that you too are entitled to "a deal."

Because there is no deal.

But then again, you're not sane.

So I suppose it all evens out.

tanker27 wrote:

You're acting as if Canada has this super secret high tech cell network that no one else has. Your situation isnt much different from those of us in the U.S. And by your responses I gather you dont have a clue as to how it all works. My guess is you talked to a salesperson and said "I want to do XYZ" and they said "you cant do XYZ" and when you rebutted "well why cant I" they proceeded to tell you why but because you were inconvenienced it all went over your head. And instead of staying calm and asking, "Well what can you do for me?" and being nice about it; you went on this blind rant on them and then turned to some nerd-forum trying to gain sympathy.

We all offered alternatives. Again, YOU ignore them.

If you knew how to read, you'd know that i've worked for telus, and bell. I guess that's too tricky for you.
2. Oh QQ, you're not a nice guy!! shut up. you're an idiot, and you're wrong.
3. yah. i'm super confused by pay as you go. thank god you were here to spell it out for me. the issue, with pay as you go phones, is that the cost to use them is inherently MUCH higher than a rate plan. starting rate of 30 cents a minute for local calls, and data is an additional fee on top of that, which is 15 cents a MB, (and for the exchange rate issue, our cents are almost equal to yours, only ours are a TINY bit higher), and the minutes/data expire. Not only that, "smartphone" support is quite limited, and not available on many phones, including most 3g "smartphones". I wanted to be sure about this, so I just phoned to check.

telus 1-866-558-2273
bell 1 800 667-0123
feel free to call them if you like.

"She wrote a nasty email saying "you've made my decision easier, off we go to the competition"" is not haggling. that's writing a complaint letter. those are 2 different things. I appreciate the point, though.

"If the 3 year contract with bundled phone is not, in fact, "a deal", than you cannot sanely argue that you too are entitled to "a deal.""

You're still an idiot. the deal you get is on teh phone. THE SUBSIDIZE THE PHONE. IT'S A DEAL. THEY DON'T SUBSIDIZE THE SERVICE. YOU PAY EXPENSIVE RATES TO SUBSIDIZE THE PHONE THAT YOU GET. PHONES ARE EXPENSIVE. THEY CHARGE YOU EXTRA TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE, AND MORE. WHAT'S CONFUSING ABOUT THIS?

HERE, LET ME BREAK IT DOWN.

Imma cell phone company, you're an idiot who can't understand anything,

I'll sell you a service, and give you a free phone,

service cost to me is X
phone cost to me is Y
I want to be sure I make money on X, plus recoup Y, and a little extra, for insurance and front running you which we'll call Z.

so, i charge you X + Y + Z

In my case,

I need X, I don't need Y or Z. Why am I paying for their insurance on the investment, and for a phone I never got. I've read your points, but they're no nonsensical. I've worked for years in the industry, having worked for telus, bell, and I even did some customer service in a call center for At&t and sprint. Why are they charging m for Y and Z?

It should be possible to get a prepaid SIM and as such avoid overpaying for a contract.
If it's easy to unlock the phone, all the better: you can choose the provider that offers the best deal for you.

The rates for calls and (especially) data should be significantly higher, though.
Depending on your usage, it might make more sense to actually get a contract.

In any case, you can experiment and find what works best for you.
And if you end up getting a contract it will be chaper for you to call your representative to lobby for more oversight in the wireless industry.

windwalker wrote:

It should be possible to get a prepaid SIM and as such avoid overpaying for a contract.
If it's easy to unlock the phone, all the better: you can choose the provider that offers the best deal for you.

The rates for calls and (especially) data should be significantly higher, though.
Depending on your usage, it might make more sense to actually get a contract.

In any case, you can experiment and find what works best for you.
And if you end up getting a contract it will be chaper for you to call your representative to lobby for more oversight in the wireless industry.

It is actually pretty easy to unlock, and it seems, telus has started offering GSM unlocking, all you have to do is call them! just found that out when on the phone with them! However, the only real coverage in Nova scotia, outside of halifax is bell/telus. I will be talking to my rep, don't worry

Glorious wrote:

cynan wrote:

No. It's not. The fact of the matter is, regardless of how many companies there actually are on paper, there is very little competition in Canada. Take Ontario, which accounts for about 1/3 of Canada's population. There is Bell and there is Rogers. That is practically it. And they do colllude to keep the pricing status quo. They even have the audacity to refer to themselves as "the blue team" and "the red team" in their own advertisements - as if no other carriers existed (which, again, is practically true). Sure there are a dozen other wireless companies (ie, solo mobile, kodo, chattr, ect), but these all run on either Roger's or Bell's networks (mostly Bell's). Some of these "competitors" are actually owned by Rogers or Bell (ie, Rogers owns Chattr and Bell owns Solo, etc). Even Telus uses Bell's network in eastern Canada.

Am I supposed to just not notice that you have completely failed to make a comparison between Canada and anywhere else?

Do you seriously fail to grasp the import of my point, which is that you are comparing Canada's situation to your imagination?

Pray tell, just where is this wonderous nation in which there are more than 2-3 major operators with signficant price differentiation? Where the small operators all have their own national networks and are completely independent of the major players?

I did not mean to contradict any specific statement of yours. The point was only to inform about the sate of the wireless market in Canada (or at least Ontario, with which I am intimately aware). To sum up, there is really only two companies, Bell and Rogers, which, due to whatever market pressures, public and federal apathy, etc, has resulted in a "duopoly" who are more apt to scratch each others back to keep status quo (because things are currently so darn cushy for them), then actually attempt to compete with one another in any meaningful way.

But sure, lets compare the competition of wireless networks in Ontario with, say, Germany? In Germany there are 4 major wireless networks, each with their own infrastructure, each with market shares of > 10%. These are 1) T-mobile (German owned) 2) Vodaphone (UK owned) 3) E-plus (Netherlands owned) 4) 02 (Spanish owned). These are major wireless players who compete in multiple European countries and have no intimate ties with telecommunications of any one country, as their livelihood depends on being competitive and viable in multiple markets. These companies have much more incentive to be competitive with one another than Rogers and Bell.

While I'm not familiar with wireless markets in the USA, in most regions there appears to be at least 3 major wireless providers with their own networks (AT&T, Verizon, T-mobile) and maybe Sprint?. The same degree of collusion between these companies, as there is between Rogers and Bell, just doesn't exist (due to the fact that there is, in a very real way, more consumer options).

Glorious wrote:

cynan wrote:

Yes there are the new Mobilicity and Wind that use their own network, but these are still establishing companies and only available in restricted areas. If you go outside these areas, you are again dependent on Roger's network. It is because these two telco giants own essesntially all the networks in Ontario that saps the market of any real competition. Maybe companies like Mobilicity and Wind can change this in the next few years, but so far, I'm not holding my breath.

My question to you is this: Would you invest in a company that was aiming to the be even the third (much less the fourth or fifth) completely independent cellphone network that covered virtually all of Ontario?

If yes, please explain to me why.

If no, please explain to me why you expect someone else to do so.

I am strongly considering it. For one, I happen to actually live in an area with Wind/Mobilicity coverage and their plans are less than 1/2 the cost (literally, no exaggeration) of Rogers/Bell or their subsidiaries (if you don't need to use your phone outside these regions). And I am getting desperate to escape Roger's and Bell's plan to maintain the highest wireless costs in the World... You may not think that the wireless plan prices offered by AT&T or Verizon, etc, appear to be too different from those offered by Bell and Rogers. On the surface they may even look similar. But there are HUGE differences. For one, in the US, most cell phone plans include nation-wide calling. In Canada, if this is available, it is almost always at an added cost, and to a restricted number of incoming/outgoing calls, etc. For Data, you simply cannot get an unlimited data account on Rogers or Bell (the largest plans being around 5 or 6 GB/month) - and this is because they make most of their money on data by charging ridiculous overage charges (like 5 cents/kb)....

Glorious wrote:

cynan wrote:

And yes, the whole point of offering the shiny new phone is for leverage to lock you into a contract, usually for 3 years. Which more than pays for the couple hundred dollars Rogers or Bell forks out for the phone up front. My gf had 14 months left on a 3 year Bell contract and called in to see how much it would cost her to get out of it early. The answer was $720. For breaking the contract 14 months early. That speaks volumes in itself.

If it more than pays for the cellphone, it's quite clearly a bad deal and SSK should be HAPPY he doesn't have one. This point of yours undermines SSK's entire complaint

Fair enough, but I wasn't trying to support SSK's OP with that statement (and never once declared I was on SSK's team). I was simply trying to illustrate how valuable these multi-year contracts are to Rogers/Bell and the ridiculous lengths they are legally allowed to go to enforce them. The $400 or whatever it is it costs them for the latest smart phone you purchase from them is a pittance compared to the tens of dollars per month (and often hundreds) extra that they are permitted to extort from their customers with data/voice plans on a monthly basis over 3 years.

There is a reason Canada pays the highest wireless rates in the world. It is also no coincidence that Canadians also pay some of the highest rates for high speed internet. The same duopoly is behind this as well (at least in Ontario).

cynan wrote:

While I'm not familiar with wireless markets in the USA, in most regions there appears to be at least 3 major wireless providers with their own networks (AT&T, Verizon, T-mobile) and maybe Sprint?. The same degree of collusion between these companies, as there is between Rogers and Bell, just doesn't exist (due to the fact that there is, in a very real way, more consumer options).

While I wouldnt exactly call it collusion there is to some degree a, "I will do it if you do it" mentality between the big four. A prime example is tired data plans. However, when you pull back and look at the big picture of what they offer all are about the same. Now there are some one offs here and there, for example AT&T phones can be used overseas without any problems just add a international plane while Verizon phones take whole different phone. (this is because of the GSM and CDMA networks each run)

Wow, such much anger in this thread.

@cynan: Telus is not small in Ontario, at least in the urban areas like Toronto. I was with Clearnet and then Telus for 10+ years. The "big 3" are all over the province. Granted Bell and Telus share the same 3G HSPA network, their CDMA networks are still different.

@ssk: You can whine and bitch all you want, but there are really 3 choices if you want postpaid plans:
1. locked into a contract, get the carrier subsidized locked phones
2. pay the carrier full price of the locked phone, and not bound by a contract - IMO this is the stupidest idea for normal users in the sense that the price of no contract "freedom" is quite high. For some people it may be worth it because of the high ETF if they have to cancel before halfway through their contact. By then they can also sell the phone to the local market and recoup some more cash. Some people do need/want a smartphone and the higher price is the premium for flexibility. You are not willing to pay for that? Tough. Nobody is forcing you to.
3. buy a totally unlocked phone from e-tailers or importers, then you get total freedom to hop providers (as long as the frequency bands match)

As for unlocking, it is almost always 10-50 bucks and you can let someone send you an unlock code. Telus just made it "official". People have been unlocking and debranding their carrier-bound phones for years I don't know why this is news to you. As long as you are willing to void the warranty and be a "rebel" to the carriers' fear tactic, you do have a choice, to a degree.

Now in terms of plan pricing, that's the part you really should be bitching about. It seems that people in US/Canada often do not realize the true cost of a device. My last phone was unlocked and I paid in full. I consciously made the decision to do that in order to gain the flexibility. In the end, you get what you pay for (except option #2 really isn't so IMO that one is stupid).

It seems crappy to not be able to chop and change as you please, but it makes sense from the carriers point of view. You either get

a) locked to a carrier, with the sweetener of a subsidized phone
or
b) freedom to sign to whoever you like, but pay the full cost of the phone

I realize I'm just stating the obvious here, but why would the carrier offer you a good deal to use their service if you can happily jump ship at any time for a better deal? Maybe if someone thought they could use it as a viable business model they would try that angle, but most of the telecom markets are little more than two horse races. Even if someone wanted to start a carrier that played the value for money service angle, they can't compete because they dont have the network coverage, or have to 'rent' the infrastructure from the other big players.

If you want to look at it from a 'it could be worse' point of view, here in NZ we get overcharged for the phones, pay ridiculously high rates for calling and data (unlimited data doesn't even exist), we don't get all the newest handsets right away or if at all and we probably won't see 4G till thats well established. Some of the standard deals here would have you pay 20c per text message, that's lol worthy. (must be around 15c USD). Comparitively some of the deals in US and Canada ain't that bad.

SSK wrote:

I don't wonder why people dislike me. I know why people find me irritating. I do it cause it's fun. I'm not going to stop being silly, because a bunch of nerds online find it annoying.

Even so, that sort of behavior has limits if you actually want to have a productive dialogue with anyone. If that's not your goal here, then by all means, carry on.