Cellphone case (Robbers) challenges Competition Act

[zz000ter]

Ottawa Citizen (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Cellphone+case+challenges+Competition/7045071/story.html)


A company’s right to free expression is up against Canada’s truth-in-advertising rules as Rogers Communications and the Competition Bureau begin to duke it out in court Tuesday over the constitutionality of the Competition Act.

In the first of its kind in Canada, Rogers will ask the Ontario Superior Court to strike down a key provision in the federal law requiring companies to have “adequate and proper” tests of a product’s performance before making performance claims in advertisements. Rogers says this testing requirement violates its right to freedom of expression enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“At its root, the case effectively advances the proposition that companies that advertise shouldn’t be forced to actually have the facts and evidence on hand before they make a claim and it somehow devalues public discourse if they are forced to do so. With all due respect to that position, it sounds a bit like a Madison Avenue wet dream,”


Rogers wants the right to LIE TO YOU!

I did not think that I could hate Rogers more than I did yesterday
but today they have sunk to an all time low

A wonder example of a Canadian Corporate Sociopath

[flashy_mcflash]

Absolutely baffling. And you know that, win or lose, they will institute a new fee so we can all pay for their legal bills. Call it the "Consumer Awareness Fee", then run an ad campaign talking about what a great value it is.

[zz000ter]

Under contract law - is the contract valid if once side (Robbers) lies to you?
Where is the good faith required under contract law for the "negotiation" of the contract?
Is the contract valid if Robbers deceives you?

[flashy_mcflash]

I'm not sure if this has changed, but any additional charges used to be considered a 'material change' to the contract and were grounds to break it. When they started instituting bandwidth caps a few years ago I broke my contract with them for internet after about 6 months on this basis and moved to Teksavvy.

Literally looking at antenna options now so I can sever cable. I'm on month-to-month for that anyway.

[Andro]

Cancelled all my mobile plans with Rogers, could not be happier! I do have to keep my internet with them as I get a pretty good deal and Tecksavvy does not make sense just yet.

[_Allan_]

"Up to 18mb/s" isn't good enough ... they want to say "We'll give you up to 1,000,000mbs" ...
Rogers will always lie, cheat and steal.

[flashy_mcflash]

The problem is that it's not just them - this would open up the floodgates for any and every company to make absurd and completely false claims about their products in ads. Get ready for a whole slew of ads for homeopathic 'medicine' that will cure AIDS and make your penis longer in only six weeks. It goes way way beyond Rogers (the effects of this legislative change, not your penis).

[Piro21]

Since when does a company have 'freedom of expression'? Has Rogers been drinking that 'corporations are people' kool-aid from the US?

[dec12]

Since when "freedom of expression" included lying?

[zz000ter]

Since when "freedom of expression" included lying?

They do not consider it lying - to them it is "creativity - and artistic license"

I think the real issue is that they do not like the $10,000,000 fine.

A $100,000 fine is OK.
They can lie all they want.
Suck in gullible customers.
Get caught
Three years later pay a $100k fine
.... and consider it a "cost of doing business"

[RolandCouch]

Total Crooks.

I signed up for a 2 year contract and they took off my discount and changed my rate mid-term and when I went to cancel I was basically told pay a $200 cancellation fee (which will go to collections if I don't pay) or ride out the term.

Never again.

[Xiaohaibao]

they will institute a new fee so we can all pay for their legal bills.
Not all, only those of you dumb enough to stick with rogers. I switched to wind long ago.

[Xiaohaibao]

Tecksavvy does not make sense just yet.
Why not? They are great.

[rommelrommel]

Not all, only those of you dumb enough to stick with rogers. I switched to wind long ago.

Not everyone lives in Toronto :rolleyes:

[Syne]

Why not? They are great.

Well for me, I just threaten Rogers down to Teksavvy rates every year, so I avoid the hassle of switching.

[dragon_drift]

System Access Fee...Government Regulatory Fee...now RYOLAB (Ripping you off like a boss) Fee...

Sigh

[Piro21]

System Access Fee...Government Regulatory Fee...now RYOLAB (Ripping you off like a boss) Fee...

Sigh

The government regulatory fee is already the 'ripping you off like a boss' fee. There's no government agency charging anything for regulation, just Rogers taking your money while lying to you that it's the government doing it.

[Syne]

There's actually a government regulation fee?

What a callow, passive-aggressive move to pull.

[Xiaohaibao]

Well for me, I just threaten Rogers down to Teksavvy rates every year, so I avoid the hassle of switching.
So you get 300 gb/month for $35/month with Rogers?

[tsat]

Not everyone lives in Toronto :rolleyes:

That's a myth

[wilsonlam97]

Bhell is even more misleading. They advertise fiber when 99% of the people in the GTA can't get it.

There is nothing true in any of their advertising.

[RolandCouch]

So you get 300 gb/month for $35/month with Rogers?

Doesn't matter. I just pay the monthly overage fees. I have high net worth, not a measly 100K.

[wilsonlam97]

Doesn't matter. I just pay the monthly overage fees. I have high net worth, not a measly 100K.

Rich ppl suck.

[RolandCouch]

Rich ppl suck.

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/dating-high-net-worth-individuals-1202133/

[wilsonlam97]

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/dating-high-net-worth-individuals-1202133/

DW. Not true high net worth. Fake baller

[Mark77]

Its rather disgusting that the Competition Bureau is attacking the operations of a private business (Rogers) that has invested billions in providing services to Canadians -- services that are entirely voluntary for Canadians to use or not.

If people find Rogers' conduct to be disgraceful, then they shouldn't use their services and should make use of other service providers. But for the government to expend resources, and to deprive Rogers of its constitutionally protected rights of speech, strikes me as something that only a facist country would allow. I hope Rogers wins this fight and may continue to enjoy the same rights as most Canadians take for granted.

What next, the government going after KFC because their chicken is not only not "finger licking good", but just the smell of it makes me gag? What about the local ice cream shop that advertises, "the biggest ice cream cones in town"? Puffery isn't illegal. Although the Competition Bureau sure thinks it is and wants to shank $10M out of Rogers' shareholders.

[Mark77]

Just as an example here, let's say that one of Rogers' competitors (ie: WIND) claims, in a shiny/glossy map, that they have 100% coverage of Metro Toronto.

Then someone finds a valley or a dead zone in Toronto where their phone with WIND service can't pick up a signal. Not unheard of with cell networks after all, especially where the tower density isn't as high as you'd see with Rogers/Bell.

Is WIND guilty of an offense under the Competition Act for making a misleading claim? Is WIND open to prosecution because they offered up a map that shows complete coverage?

I'd say, "of course not, that's absurd".

So why then is there a sort of double standard when it comes to Rogers? Why are you folks ragging on Rogers, when certain performance claims that can't necessarily be met are quite commonplace in the industry, and that one must judge more heavily based on the reputation of the firm, and actual personal experiences, rather than mere advertising?

[Mark77]

System Access Fee...Government Regulatory Fee...now RYOLAB (Ripping you off like a boss) Fee...

Sigh


If the government sucks $10M out of Canada's telecom sector, that's at least $10M less that can be spent on system upgrades, price reductions, or a whole host of other things that would benefit the consumer. Since telecoms tend to use financial leverage in their infrastructure investments, that number could be significantly greater than just $10M.

The tragedy here is a bunch of idiot civil servants are probably collecting top dollar prosecuting this case and the appeals, against such a reputable and well respected private business, Rogers.

[Forhad]

I am going to Cancel my mobile plans with Rogers.

[zz000ter]

The tragedy here is a bunch of idiot civil servants are probably collecting top dollar prosecuting this case and the appeals, against such a reputable and well respected private business, Rogers.

I am not sure if you are being sincere or sarcastic or provocative.

You do know that Robbers, at the start, received a lot of government money and a lot of free spectrum - right?

[Piro21]

I am not sure if you are being sincere or sarcastic or provocative.

You do know that Robbers, at the start, received a lot of government money and a lot of free spectrum - right?

Mark gets paid by the telcos to propagandize for them on forums. Look up one of the threads discussing UBB. He's so oblivious to facts it's like talking to that 'only one way to god' guy at Yonge and Dundas.

[zz000ter]

I wonder if Mark cares about truth in advertising when it comes to his pharmaceuticals

[arclite]

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1238545--roger-communications-and-competition-bureau-in-court-over-misleading-cellphone-ads


Opening arguments are to begin on Wednesday in a civil trial into whether Rogers Communications Inc. misled consumers with its ad campaign promoting the discount cellphone brand Chatr — a case shaping up as an early test of the constitutionality of Canada’s recently amended Competition Act.

The proceedings at Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto will examine the Competition Bureau’s assertion that Rogers was misleading during a November 2010 ad campaign that claimed its cellphone and text service “had fewer dropped calls than new wireless carriers.”

The Chatr spots drew complaints from upstart wireless companies in Canada, including Wind Mobile, and was pulled within a month of the Bureau filing its application for a hearing, the enforcement agency said.

The Bureau maintains that Rogers had not carried out “adequate and proper testing” before making the claim and unfairly discredited its competitors.

The Bureau demanded an end to the campaign, a public corrective notice, restitution to affected customers and a levy of up to $10 million against Rogers, the maximum allowed under 2009 amendments to the Competition Act in so-called administrative monetary penalties.

Rogers says the Bureau is demanding substantiation that would require tests of network switching systems, technology controlled by competitors who protect the systems as proprietary assets. That switch test requirement is so onerous it infringes on its right to free expression as a result, Rogers claims.

In a pre-hearing into the constitutional arguments on Tuesday, an expert witness for the defence, J. Howard Beales, former director of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said a guilty ruling against Rogers could actually limit dissemination of information in wireless industry marketing.

In some cases, testing standards can be too rigorous, too costly and not necessary to assure truth in advertising, Beales said. The result can be to discourage advertisers from making reasonable claims that lack test-based support — claims that can otherwise promote innovation and price competition in the marketplace.

Rogers also argues that the hefty administrative penalty amounts to a criminal fine in a proceeding where defendants lack the normal protections afforded in criminal matters.

The Bureau has challenged a number of performance-based advertising claims in diverse industries, with Bell Canada last year agreeing to pay the $10 million penalty after the Bureau found it had charged higher prices than advertised for services including home phone, Internet, satellite TV and wireless.

The Rogers case is the first case to challenge the constitutionality of the administrative penalties for misleading advertising. The trial is expected to last several weeks.

More specifically:

In some cases, testing standards can be too rigorous, too costly and not necessary to assure truth in advertising, Beales said. The result can be to discourage advertisers from making reasonable claims that lack test-based support — claims that can otherwise promote innovation and price competition in the marketplace.

The claims already made are unreasonable. The wording is already ambiguous, they should just change the wording. None of this "up to x mbps". "Best"-case scenario doesn't cut it.

[ClubberLang]

LOL. I was waiting for Mark77 to get in here and defend this.

[ClubberLang]

Psst... Yes they would. Nothing to see here folks.



Just as an example here, let's say that one of Rogers' competitors (ie: WIND) claims, in a shiny/glossy map, that they have 100% coverage of Metro Toronto.

Then someone finds a valley or a dead zone in Toronto where their phone with WIND service can't pick up a signal. Not unheard of with cell networks after all, especially where the tower density isn't as high as you'd see with Rogers/Bell.

Is WIND guilty of an offense under the Competition Act for making a misleading claim? Is WIND open to prosecution because they offered up a map that shows complete coverage?

I'd say, "of course not, that's absurd".

[zz000ter]

WTF does this mean? claims that can otherwise promote innovation and price competition in the marketplace.

How do inaccurate advertisements promote innovation?
.... better yet how do they foster price competition?

They say these things and they think that we the consumer-sheep do not think for ourselves.


We know which direction the USA is heading in if " J. Howard Beales, former director of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection" says that it is OK to lie to customers.

[divx]

LOL. I was waiting for Mark77 to get in here and defend this.

w00t, it's been ages since i see the mark defense force again

[whampoa]

Cancelled all my mobile plans with Rogers, could not be happier! I do have to keep my internet with them as I get a pretty good deal and Tecksavvy does not make sense just yet.

Nothing from Rogers make sense, they all play with the number, by shuffling the hidden fee here and there.

They can add all the fees and craps they want, but as long as the invoice total amount match the negotiate price, that's all I care.

[Ascott]

Just as an example here, let's say that one of Rogers' competitors (ie: WIND) claims, in a shiny/glossy map, that they have 100% coverage of Metro Toronto.

Then someone finds a valley or a dead zone in Toronto where their phone with WIND service can't pick up a signal. Not unheard of with cell networks after all, especially where the tower density isn't as high as you'd see with Rogers/Bell.

Is WIND guilty of an offense under the Competition Act for making a misleading claim? Is WIND open to prosecution because they offered up a map that shows complete coverage?

I'd say, "of course not, that's absurd".

So why then is there a sort of double standard when it comes to Rogers? Why are you folks ragging on Rogers, when certain performance claims that can't necessarily be met are quite commonplace in the industry, and that one must judge more heavily based on the reputation of the firm, and actual personal experiences, rather than mere advertising?

The difference is that the map is left open to interpretation of the individual. No where does it say "Complete 100% coverage within this area!". What Rogers wants is the ability to publish very specific claims without any supporting evidence. There is a huge difference in the two scenarios.

[Mark77]

The difference is that the map is left open to interpretation of the individual. No where does it say "Complete 100% coverage within this area!". What Rogers wants is the ability to publish very specific claims without any supporting evidence. There is a huge difference in the two scenarios.

I'd suggest that a map that is completely shaded over with a colour claiming coverage, would be an example of a claim of 100% coverage.

Of course, there's a disclaimer in small print usually. Just like Rogers' ads probably contained small print of a disclaimer with respect to this being the experience of one individual, and that users' experience may vary.

I know Rogers might not be everyone's favourite business, but to claim that they received government money, or to claim that they should have paid a ton for the spectrum they use in delivering such a valuable service to the public, is just silly.

[rems]

I'd suggest that a map that is completely shaded over with a colour claiming coverage, would be an example of a claim of 100% coverage.

Of course, there's a disclaimer in small print usually. Just like Rogers' ads probably contained small print of a disclaimer with respect to this being the experience of one individual, and that users' experience may vary.

I know Rogers might not be everyone's favourite business, but to claim that they received government money, or to claim that they should have paid a ton for the spectrum they use in delivering such a valuable service to the public, is just silly.

You can't claim 100% coverage because situations where you're in a basement might prevent you from getting coverage but on the main level you can.

Because when I look at my Rogers coverage, it's all shaded. But I don't expect to get 100% coverage where it's shaded. In fact, I've actually experienced the above scenario with Rogers.

There's a difference between the two. It's not hard to see that if you get reception at point A which is further from a tower than point B, it's a safe assumption that you can get reception at point B.

How do you use that sort of logic with saying they have less dropped calls without actually testing it?

[flashy_mcflash]

I know Rogers might not be everyone's favourite business, but to claim that they received government money, or to claim that they should have paid a ton for the spectrum they use in delivering such a valuable service to the public, is just silly.

It would be silly if they were the only company capable or willing to provide that service, but this is not the case.

[Ascott]

I'd suggest that a map that is completely shaded over with a colour claiming coverage, would be an example of a claim of 100% coverage.

You and I both know there's no such thing as "100% coverage". As does most of the public. Most people are aware that if you go through a tunnel, or into a below ground parkade you should expect your reception to be spotty. There's no way to account for these things in an easy to read format.

And you can infer whatever you want from the map - the fact is no one has outright stated "There is 100% coverage across this entire area." What Rogers wants is the ability to slap that statement on the map without it actually being true.

[flashy_mcflash]

How is there even another side to this argument? Why does ROGERS or any corporation need 'freedom of expression'? Who, exactly, benefits from this? Why, to a consumer, is it in any way helpful for a corporation to have the right to misrepresent themselves, and their products/services? I don't care if it's a company I don't like, such as Rogers or a company I do like, such as Teksavvy or anyone else.

[Mark77]

How is there even another side to this argument? Why does ROGERS or any corporation need 'freedom of expression'? Who, exactly, benefits from this? Why, to a consumer, is it in any way helpful for a corporation to have the right to misrepresent themselves, and their products/services? I don't care if it's a company I don't like, such as Rogers or a company I do like, such as Teksavvy or anyone else.

Rogers, at the end of the day, is just a group, a conspiracy, of PEOPLE. If we deny the conspiracy the right of speech, then aren't we also denying the individuals who make up ROGERS the right of free speech?

If Rogers lies, people will eventually take them to be a group of buffoons (and some folks obviously do, calling them "Robbers"). If, in a contract, they make a guarantee or representation they can't live up to, there are remedies. The issue here, according to the previous article, isn't even of lying, but rather, of not having a study that is as rigorous as the Competition Bureau thought should have been done. If something is obvious, like a hole in the roof, or cracks in a driveway, how many folks would spend big bucks hiring an engineering firm just to tell them they need some repairs?

[rems]

Rogers, at the end of the day, is just a group, a conspiracy, of PEOPLE. If we deny the conspiracy the right of speech, then aren't we also denying the individuals who make up ROGERS the right of free speech?

If Rogers lies, people will eventually take them to be a group of buffoons (and some folks obviously do, calling them "Robbers"). If, in a contract, they make a guarantee or representation they can't live up to, there are remedies. The issue here, according to the previous article, isn't even of lying, but rather, of not having a study that is as rigorous as the Competition Bureau thought should have been done. If something is obvious, like a hole in the roof, or cracks in a driveway, how many folks would spend big bucks hiring an engineering firm just to tell them they need some repairs?

But there's a balance. You have free speech but you also are prevented from saying certain things like lies. Which is why we have such things as libel/slander.

By Rogers saying they have fewer dropped calls (without actually proving it), then that's essentially a lie. They're telling people that the competitors are worse when in fact they aren't.

[Mark77]

I am not sure if you are being sincere or sarcastic or provocative.


Neither. The civil servants at the Competition Bureau have to pursue cases like these (with few merits) because its basically how they make their living. Its government abuse of private business at its best. Today they shake down Rogers, tomorrow they move onto another target with a flimsy/weak case, and shake them down for some money. Only the civil servants and Rogers' lawyers get rich, while everyone suffers because Rogers, Bell, etc., no longer have millions of dollars to lower prices or make new system investments.

[Mark77]

But there's a balance. You have free speech but you also are prevented from saying certain things like lies. Which is why we have such things as libel/slander.

Sure, we have those remedies, which should have been used by the aggrieved competitors if the claims weren't true.


By Rogers saying they have fewer dropped calls (without actually proving it), then that's essentially a lie. They're telling people that the competitors are worse when in fact they aren't.

If Rogers lied, damaging a competitors' reputation, then the competitor should have filed a Statement of Claim with their nearest court, and there's a whole process to move such claims forward.

AFAIK, nobody is questioning (or not questioning) the truth of Rogers' claims in this instance, but rather, they're questioning whether Rogers' studies were robust enough to support the claims. Truth, of course, is the standard used in slander/libel cases.

[rems]

Sure, we have those remedies, which should have been used by the aggrieved competitors if the claims weren't true.



If Rogers lied, damaging a competitors' reputation, then the competitor should have filed a Statement of Claim with their nearest court, and there's a whole process to move such claims forward.

AFAIK, nobody is questioning (or not questioning) the truth of Rogers' claims in this instance, but rather, they're questioning whether Rogers' studies were robust enough to support the claims. Truth, of course, is the standard used in slander/libel cases.

But the other companies are trying to build a customer base. These lies may prevent them from getting these customers. Rogers is trying to unfairly stifle competition. Do you honestly not see something WRONG with this?

[flashy_mcflash]

Rogers, at the end of the day, is just a group, a conspiracy, of PEOPLE. If we deny the conspiracy the right of speech, then aren't we also denying the individuals who make up ROGERS the right of free speech?


Absolutely we are. And within the context of a corporation, that's 100% fine with me. As an individual, you have freedom of speech, but as a corporation, you do not. 'Freedom' of expression in the latter case is not necessary or beneficial to anyone.

[laihama]

As far as I'm concerned, a fighter brand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_brand) such as Chatr is just plain WRONG.

[laihama]

Rogers, at the end of the day, is just a group, a conspiracy, of PEOPLE. If we deny the conspiracy the right of speech, then aren't we also denying the individuals who make up ROGERS the right of free speech?
By that logic, how many votes should ROGERS get in a federal election?

[Mark77]

But the other companies are trying to build a customer base. These lies may prevent them from getting these customers. Rogers is trying to unfairly stifle competition. Do you honestly not see something WRONG with this?

a) Nobody is even alleging that Rogers lied. The allegation is that Rogers made a claim without doing an exhaustive engineering study to back it up. The claim could be true, or it could be false. If its false and they damaged the reputation of a competitor, the competitor has recourse in libel.

b) Since Rogers' competitors bring no proprietary advantage to the table (ie: they're not significantly more efficient, they're not using a better technology, etc.), the only purpose of their existence is to suppress prices. I see a big problem with this that demands that Rogers use all of its resources, including advertising its superior base of installed plant, to encourage customers to remain with their service.

[Mark77]

By that logic, how many votes should ROGERS get in a federal election?

Nearly all Rogers employees are eligible to vote in elections.

[laihama]

Nearly all Rogers employees are eligible to vote in elections.
All Rogers employees have a right to free speech as individuals.

[Mark77]

As far as I'm concerned, a fighter brand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_brand) such as Chatr is just plain WRONG.

Well let the marketplace be the judge of that. I swear, some people are insatiable -- they rag on Rogers' prices and claim that Canada should open its doors to anyone who wants to ride in on a magic carpet and 'compete' (especially with so-called "foreign money"), but then get upset if Rogers (a Canadian controlled firm) has a low-cost service offering.

[flashy_mcflash]

a) Nobody is even alleging that Rogers lied.

Actually, they did lie.

http://mobilesyrup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/chatr-fewer-dropped-calls.jpg

According to the Court documents from the preceding, the bureau found that the on average there is no significant difference between the number of dropped calls on Chatr and new carriers. Furthermore, in the cases of Ottawa and Toronto, new carriers experienced slightly fewer dropped calls than did Chatr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatr#Controversy

[laihama]

a) Nobody is even alleging that Rogers lied. The allegation is that Rogers made a claim without doing an exhaustive engineering study to back it up. The claim could be true, or it could be false. If its false and they damaged the reputation of a competitor, the competitor has recourse in libel.
In a defamation lawsuit, the onus is on the defamer to prove that the claims are true rather than for the target of the defamation to prove that it is false.


b) Since Rogers' competitors bring no proprietary advantage to the table (ie: they're not significantly more efficient, they're not using a better technology, etc.), the only purpose of their existence is to suppress prices. I see a big problem with this that demands that Rogers use all of its resources, including advertising its superior base of installed plant, to encourage customers to remain with their service.
lolwut? Free market competition is bad, right, comrade?

[laihama]

Well let the marketplace be the judge of that. I swear, some people are insatiable -- they rag on Rogers' prices and claim that Canada should open its doors to anyone who wants to ride in on a magic carpet and 'compete' (especially with so-called "foreign money"), but then get upset if Rogers (a Canadian controlled firm) has a low-cost service offering.I have no problems with Rogers doing the following:

1) Dropping the prices for Rogers to remain competitive.
-OR-
2) Decide not to compete directly with low-cost competitors and remain targeting "premium customers".

What I have a problem with is a temporary company that exists only to stifle the competition and will be immediately shutdown if the competition withdraws from the market.

[rems]

a) Nobody is even alleging that Rogers lied. The allegation is that Rogers made a claim without doing an exhaustive engineering study to back it up. The claim could be true, or it could be false. If its false and they damaged the reputation of a competitor, the competitor has recourse in libel.

b) Since Rogers' competitors bring no proprietary advantage to the table (ie: they're not significantly more efficient, they're not using a better technology, etc.), the only purpose of their existence is to suppress prices. I see a big problem with this that demands that Rogers use all of its resources, including advertising its superior base of installed plant, to encourage customers to remain with their service.

You're presenting something you do not know is true as fact. You're fine with that?! Really?!

[wilsonlam97]

Somebody needs to sue bhell. Their service is NOT consistently fast. Their ad says it but it just isn't true. They have problems handling peak load to begin with and have taken measures against their customers to balance the load. Rogers has never advertised their service this way. Fibe is such a piece of cr@p.

& yes I hate both companies but have no choice but to give one of them my money.

[zz000ter]

I know Rogers might not be everyone's favourite business, but to claim that they received government money, or to claim that they should have paid a ton for the spectrum they use in delivering such a valuable service to the public, is just silly.

Really? I guess you do not know your telecoms history.

Why should Rogers have gotten national spectrum for free
while today's new market entrants have to pay an arm and a leg
in spectrum auctions where Rogers jacks up the price just to keep new entrants out?

Whatever happened to the WiMaX spectrum that was bought about ten years ago?
Where are the services from the spectrum that Rogers and Bell bought?
Sure Inukshuk exists - but basically just on paper so they can fulfil their service requirements

They bought the spectrum to keep others from getting it

[akz]

oh wow, I was wondering when someone would actually start to question the legality of Rogers advertisement campaigns. Such as their "TRULY UNLIMITED" plans with limits on minutes and data, and their claims for excellent customer service oh wow those commercials really piss me off when I see or hear them cause its all BS I wish sometimes I was able to run a ad campaign against Rogers wonder if they can sue me then and I can claim freedom of speech lol

[myapple]

Somebody needs to sue bhell. Their service is NOT consistently fast. Their ad says it but it just isn't true. They have problems handling peak load to begin with and have taken measures against their customers to balance the load. Rogers has never advertised their service this way. Fibe is such a piece of cr@p.

& yes I hate both companies but have no choice but to give one of them my money.

I have the FIBE 15 service and it's been consistently fast for me. Based on your previous posts, I assume you've never even used bell for internet. Maybe you should limit your comments to services that you've actually tried before rather than just selectively repeating the opinions of others.

[Rainne]

I like how the big three have basically the same phone plans for the same price, minus/plus one or two features.

Btw, we still pay $5-7 for Caller ID lol

[Piro21]

I like how the big three have basically the same phone plans for the same price, minus/plus one or two features.

Btw, we still pay $5-7 for Caller ID lol

Mark's definition of true competition right there. Not oligopolistic behaviour at all.

[LostInTruth]

Its rather disgusting that the Competition Bureau is attacking the operations of a private business (Rogers) that has invested billions in providing services to Canadians -- services that are entirely voluntary for Canadians to use or not.

If people find Rogers' conduct to be disgraceful, then they shouldn't use their services and should make use of other service providers. But for the government to expend resources, and to deprive Rogers of its constitutionally protected rights of speech, strikes me as something that only a facist country would allow. I hope Rogers wins this fight and may continue to enjoy the same rights as most Canadians take for granted.

What next, the government going after KFC because their chicken is not only not "finger licking good", but just the smell of it makes me gag? What about the local ice cream shop that advertises, "the biggest ice cream cones in town"? Puffery isn't illegal. Although the Competition Bureau sure thinks it is and wants to shank $10M out of Rogers' shareholders.
What are you talking about? Rogers just wants to flaunt its money and power, probably scared because TELUS is doing more for their customers than Rogers would even dare to dream of. If Rogers didnt cut all those employees then their profits would once again have fallen last quarter. Only the gullible choose Rogers because of their misleading advertisements.

[LostInTruth]

But there's a balance. You have free speech but you also are prevented from saying certain things like lies. Which is why we have such things as libel/slander.

By Rogers saying they have fewer dropped calls (without actually proving it), then that's essentially a lie. They're telling people that the competitors are worse when in fact they aren't.
Exactly. Rogers tried this before and lost. The ONLY way they can get customers is by LYING. You dont see Rogers giving back to communities just stuffing their pockets with senseless nonsence

[Piro21]

Exactly. Rogers tried this before and lost. The ONLY way they can get customers is by LYING. You dont see Rogers giving back to communities just stuffing their pockets with senseless nonsence

Not only stuffing their pockets. They're also buying up all the media companies and sports teams they can while paying guys like Mark to scream poverty for them. Ask yourself when you last heard a non-Rogers (or Bell) ad on the radio in the GTA, or heard any negative or controversial reporting on them (like anything at all about this case). There's a reason for that.

[Syne]

Well let the marketplace be the judge of that. I swear, some people are insatiable -- they rag on Rogers' prices and claim that Canada should open its doors to anyone who wants to ride in on a magic carpet and 'compete' (especially with so-called "foreign money"), but then get upset if Rogers (a Canadian controlled firm) has a low-cost service offering.

Really? Would you listen to yourself?

Rogers came up with a low-cost offering to compete with itself? FFS man.. give your head a shake.

[LostInTruth]

^^^ Im still hoping that deal does not go through - how BELL/Rogers can control the media outlets is baffling. Its ok because TELUS will continue to kick Rogers a$$ each quarter, while WIND takes away from Rogers marketshare, and Rogers continues to alienate their customer base farther and waste money on frivolous endeavors. To be honest though I dont think the telecom is as bad as it used to be though, you now have Koodo who offers unlimited calling on a reliable network (TELUS) so its not all bad - Right now I just take pleasure in watching Rogers shrinking revenue

[Piro21]

Really? Would you listen to yourself?

Rogers came up with a low-cost offering to compete with itself? FFS man.. give your head a shake.

He has to be trolling. Look at what he's posting: "Rogers is extremely competitive and will destroy all competitors! For god's sake please don't let them into the country to compete with us Rogers wants our customers to trust what we say! That's why we want to exercise our imaginary corporate freedom of expression to lie to them!"