Rogers hikes txt price, angers Mum
p2pnet news view | Mobiles:- A mother in Coquitlam, BC, is angry with Rogers, her cellphone provider, for changing their contract, says metronews.ca.
But Rogers Wireless says she was told some terms would be altered, says the story.
“Rosanna von Sacken purchased three cellphones from Rogers in September 2008,” it says, going on she signed a three-year student My 10 plan “allowing her kids unlimited calls and texts to and from 10 numbers of their choice”.
All text messages received would be free.
But in July, “2009 Rogers started charging 15 cents for text messages received that were not covered by an air-time package,” says the story.
One of Rosanna’s kids was at the time exchanging about 200 text messages a day, it states, going on, “A spokesperson for Rogers said they notified customers in June 2009 that their contracts would be changing.
“Von Sacken admits she missed the notification on her June 2009 bill, saying ‘no one reads all the fine print’.”
Says Edward Bukszar, a Simon Fraser University business professor, “You always risk alienating customers when you change things like this regardless of the strategy they put behind it.”
No kidding.
If p2pnet has value for you, help me keep it online. Cheers! And thanks : )
(If you don’t fancy online payments, please email me at p2pnet @ shaw dot ca and I’ll send you my snail-mail address.)
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
metronews.ca – Mom takes on Rogers policy, December 16, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:57 am
I wonder what the CWTA self-regulating voluntary code of conduct will do to help this poor woman who had her 3-year contract changed at the whim of the big telco.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:10 am
People have to start being very vocal about this practice of coercing customers into contracts that aren’t honoured as CONTRACTS.
There are laws about anything you agree to and sign for. These companies are NOT allowed to arbitrarily change contract terms, and any clauses in your contract that would say they reserve such rights are ILLEGAL and UNENFORCEABLE.
The trouble with the law is, it’s only there for you if you object immediately to what they’re doing. Once you’ve paid the next bill, you’ve somehow “agreed” to the new terms, even if you haven’t even seen any evidence that they’re changing something. The fact that they’ve buried the news on their website’s “terms of service” page is often enough to get them off the hook, even if they haven’t told you. And yet, according to law, they need to have your acknowledged “informed consent” to change any terms that would affect your rates.
Not enough people are screaming at their MPs about this, or better yet, simply threatening to call their lawyers and the local media, unless the company is willing to honour the terms of the ORIGINAL agreement.
I still have my original “unlimited” internet service, despite my provider’s countless efforts to extort it away from me. Because I showed my provider anything less than the original agreement wouldn’t be tolerated and I was willing to prove that.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Exactly. But sheeple just tolerate, bitch and don’t force the issue.
time, energy, frustrations, countless complaints = a trap telecom knows they can run circles around you till you give up without moving forward.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
hmm, so if it’s ok to change the erms after the contract is signed then there is no need to sign a contract is there?
Can we chnage the terms as well, cause I’m thinking the cell bills to much so maybe I agree to pay $25 now instead of $50.
It wouldn’t wash if the consumer wants to change anything but it’ ok if the corporation does… Where exactly are the goverments consumer advocates?
December 16th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
“Where exactly are the goverments consumer advocates?”
Those positions were replaced some time ago, by the CRTC.
:/