Rogers, Bell, Telus, SaskTel Launch ‘Low-Cost’ Plans as Ordered by CRTC

wearysky wrote: ↑ Typical - any time the CRTC doesn't specifically mandate something (like speed minimums), the carriers take advantage.

CRTC chairman under fire over one-on-one meetings with big telecom lobbyists

'Mr. Scott held at least 11 reported solo meetings with Bell, Rogers or Shaw during the course of the CRTC's open and active file,' TekSavvy said in a press release

ji2o0k wrote: ↑ CRTC is in cahoots with Big 3 Telcos now - real cozy over beers!!

Gee wrote: ↑ This was posted a week ago. Canada officially has the highest cost for mobile data in the world

Source:

https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/carriers/ ... chart-pic/

wearysky wrote: ↑ Because even these crappy 3gb/$35 plans are still only $11.67/gb.

VivienM wrote: ↑ What is so crappy about a 3GB/$35 plan? It's a lot better for a lot of people (especially in the covid world) than a $75/10-15-20GB plan... which is what the ARPU-obsessed carriers are pushing everyone on their main brands towards.

wearysky wrote: ↑ Ok, "crappy" is perhaps a bit harsh... But these are nothing special. Zoomer has had 4gb/$35 at full LTE speeds (with free phones and activation credits) for years and years now. Lucky and Public have also had 3gb/$35 at 3G speeds for quite some time. The CRTC mandated that the big 3 have to have "affordable" plans with a decent amount of data and all they did was take their existing plans from 3rd tier brands and move them up one brand tier which feels very much like a "letter but not the spirit of the mandate" kinda situation.

VivienM wrote: ↑ I think the CRTC intended to have the "affordable" plans offered by the main brands so that your average low-usage client, e.g. seniors, could easily switch to it while remaining with the carrier/brand they are used to... and so the "affordable" plans would have the full range of options, e.g. roaming, visual voicemail, Apple Watches, etc - all the things that the carriers try to reserve for their top brands.

I have nothing against Public or Lucky, I've had a secondary phone on both for a long time, but... would you really recommend an outfit with no phone customer service to a lot of elderly low-usage people? And is there any 'nice' migration path from Telus -> Public? I think it would have to be done as a full port which is a bit more daunting.

Interestingly, I think the fact that all three carriers ... are not offering the "affordable" plans on their main brands and added a "3G speeds" qualifier that doesn't seem to have been intended by the CRTC tells you how scared they are. They know fully well how many people regularly use <4GB at the mainline brand and how much those people pay. Wouldn't surprise me if many of those people were on $70-100 plans, perhaps from the old days of subsidized phones.

(Hell, I was looking at the affordable plans for my parents who are on Quebec plans and have now paid off their devices and have probably never used more than 500 megs in a month. But the fact that they're not available at the Telus main brand is enough to have discouraged that for now...)

wearysky wrote: ↑ I think if the CRTC wanted something that would actually help consumers at all, they would have mandated much better than 3gb/$35, period. This is just the CRTC pretending to do something for consumers and wording it vaguely enough that their buddies in industry can still weasel their way into not really doing anything. See also: the "cheap" basic cable TV plans that came into place a while back.

wearysky wrote: ↑I wouldn't put a low usage senior on Public, no, but Lucky *has* a call center. And Zoomer is a brand that is literally aimed entirely at seniors (all of their plans include a free membership to the Canadian Association of Retired People!).

As I mentioned above - the fact that Canada is somehow still averaging 14 euro per gigabyte nationwide is clearly a sign that there are a lot of low usage people paying *way* too much for their plans right now, but the CRTC's efforts at improving that are pretty laughable. A *much* more effective mandate would be to require that if there is an equivalent plan offered for a cheaper price, carriers have to contact every customer to make them aware of it. Or even better, just migrate them automatically. But the CRTC would never mandate that.

VivienM wrote: ↑
I'm not sure how the skinny basic TV plans have actually been received. At least Rogers didn't decide to offer "Chatr TV" and limit the skinny basic offering to that brand...


Don't give them any ideas!