S.O.B.'s

Anyone surprised by this....

You think their cable-cousins over at Rogers are any better ??

I ranted several weeks ago about the "customer service" offered by these two

customer service my a$$ 

Mike Cleaver wrote:

It's called "Customer Abuse."   Get with the program!

I don't have any issues with Rogers at this time, but bell could be a lot better. 

Mark Towhey very briefly brought this up at the tail end of his CFRB show on Sunday. He only took three calls and - surprise! - every caller that got on the air talked about Rogers, and not Bell. Must be a coincidence, of course.

There was one interesting statement made that the host let slip by without probing further. The final anonymous caller identified himself as a Rogers customer rep. and confirmed his colleagues have been told not to bring up Skinny Basic with customers unless they specifically ask about it themselves. And he admitted that the way the re-jigged packages are structured are designed to make it more expensive to go the new route.

Hands up anyone who finds this surprising.

The few who got through seemed to believe true Pick and Pay, which won't kick in until later this year, is the only way they'll save money. My guess is they'll be disappointed when the time comes.

I understand that the companies are mandated to provide this service, that's a discussion in itself, but the fact that there's outrage that they aren't pushing it as much as they should, or that they are being mandated to push it at all, is ridiculous.   I get it, a disenfranchised and IMHO miniscule but loud contingent scream that the services cost too much.  There, you got your deal.   Be quiet.   

I've never walked into a car dealership, a hotel, a restaurant, or anywhere else and been told "here's the menu, but if you don't want to spend money, buy this, it's cheap'.  At some point in this nanny state, people need to be responsible for their own choices and decisions.  Content from a BDU isn't a god given right.  Put up an antenae and get the local stations off-air if you must.  And if they aren't available, that's a far different discussion than holding BDU's responsible for delivering government mandated content.

"I'd like to buy a porsche please.."   Of Course sir, but why not consider this shitty Corola instead.  It'll get you where you need to go.

As I said, the fact that the BDU's are forced to provide this service at all is amazing, but the fact that they also are expected to inform and educate that it exists, not to mention push it, is right up there with Hydro having to raise rates in one breath, and recommending people not use or at least cut back useage of their services in another.

(In the interest of openness It's worth pointing out, among others, I work for Bell, I get paid for working for Bell, I like working for Bell, but some of my home services are also with Rogers and Telus.  All three are great companies who I've done work with in the past.  Corus and Astral are also companies I've done work with in the past.  (Ahem).  Anyway, These opinons are my own, not a result of any corporate positioning or cool-ade I've been force fed by the various organizations.  I'm all for paying a fair buck for what I consider to be a fair service, and if that balance isn't there, I'm capable of doing something about it.  As, I believe, are most folks.  I'm tired of people whining and bitching about how much they pay for something, then complaining that the 'discount' version of the product they invariably buy is 'cheap' and 'inferiror'   Get your priorities straight.)
 

Last edited by ig (February 28, 2016 6:48 pm)

Coming up after this victory..  'skinny internet basic'  

Then god knows what.  skinny transit basic, skinny rent basic, skinny cell service basic, skinny parking basic, skinny blue jays and leafs basic,  

We now have 'Skinny Ontario post sec. education' basic. 

How dare anyone make a profit on Canadian citizens by taking their money.   Why not do it the way the weasels in Ottawa and Queens Park do it,  tax it or steal it.

geo wrote:

Well put; that's why you're the quarterback on the Sunday $$$ Show

RadioActive wrote:

With all due respect to our illustrious moderator      
 
 

 
 

 according to CRTC Chair Jean-Pierre Blais  "If the CRTC deems some companies to be disregarding the intent of the decision, the regulator will take action against them."

 

 

Well it's nice and I am so glad  to see Monsieur Blais was and is prepared for the any disingenuous activity by the likes of Bell. Bless his heart...

Wasn't it Verizon, the American giant  who just a year or two ago were said to be eyeing buying bandwidth and moving to Canada to start up to compete with these local fellows?? Do you remember the hue and cry, the gnashing of teeth, the sky-is-going-to-fall attitude of our Canadian operations ?? The "....oh please-please-please....don't let them in..." attitude ???  It was sickening...enough to make you puke...

Do you remember back in the day when Bell MADE YOU stay up 'til 11 p.m. so you could get a semi-decent rate on a long distance telephone call ??? Do you remember that Iain ???

Do you remember the fantastic "negative billing"  scenario that Rogers got caught at and was badly scolded for not so many years ago ?? Iain...remember that too ???

These jokers need help to run their operations that is obvious.  Because if they don't get the guidance and oversight  they need they show only slightly better than thuggish behavior towards Canadians. 

I rest my case...for now...

I do remember those days, because circuits were limited, business used them during the day, and the lower rates could be accommodated because of the time of day.   And there's nothing wrong with that.    Shouldn't a free market system be based on people not wanting to buy something therefore the provider is forced to sell it for less, rather than people not wanting to pay for something so they appeal to the regulator to force lower prices for that product?

I want an Audi Q5.  It's $53,000.  That's too much.  Choice #1 is to buy something I can afford, choice #2 is to appeal for government price controls to bring it down to $18k so that i can have one.

I'd like a house on the Bridle Path.  The one I like comes in at $13,900,000.00 .  I can't afford it, but I should be able to, so I appeal to the government for skinny basic real estate so that I can pick it up for $120k.

My regular shit disturbing nature aside, I truly don't understand the logic or the sense of entitlement.

unclefester wrote:

Do you remember back in the day when Bell MADE YOU stay up 'til 11 p.m. so you could get a semi-decent rate on a long distance telephone call ??? Do you remember that Iain ???
Do you remember the fantastic "negative billing"  scenario that Rogers got caught at and was badly scolded for not so many years ago ?? Iain...remember that too ???
These jokers need help to run their operations that is obvious.  Because if they don't get the guidance and oversight  they need they show only slightly better than thuggish behavior towards Canadians. 
I rest my case...for now...

Your point about apartments is well taken, but isn't that the fault of the apartment owners signing exclusive contracts.  If someone living in an apartment can't get CBC or CTV off-air, then that's a matter for the commission to take up with those broadcasters.   If the government want to go up against Rogers or Bell or whomever because their licensed off-air signals aren't available properly, I have no problem with that.  But don't go against the bdu for not making them easily available.

There are also subsidies available for the TTC for families who can't afford it, including letting kids under 13 on for free etc.   Maybe a cable tv subsidy for families earning under $nn,xxx a year?  

Your point about being morally unsupportable is bang on though, and you can't legislate morality.  Those who charged $15 for a bottle of water did so, and had their own conscience to live with.  And I'm sure some slept pretty well knowing they had a few extra dollars in their bank accounts.  Ofcourse the families who had power, and drove across the city and poured out of the Lexus' to grab whatever 'free' stuff they could are right up there with the water suppliers.

Maybe in the long term, the mistake was the CRTC backing off on terrestrial broadcasters having to maintain good signal coverage, but the current penalizing the messenger because the message isn't clear is just silly.

BTW why isn't XM/Sirius also forced to offer a 'skinny basic' since the service delivers CBC and other unavailable Canadian broadcast signals to places all across Canada that don't have coverage.    A $4 a month charge for only the spoken word channels would make all the difference to people in outlying communities.  Since the CBC hasn't lived up to making content available to all people in Canada, why not force Sirius to take a price cut on a subscription package and do the job for the corp.


 

My humble kick at the can in this discussion is that all of this has been a long time coming. Monopoly-building doesn't happen overnight.

We began with small independent local TV stations that depended on advertising for their survival. Networks were formed to provide what local budgets could not. But then, along came the cable companies (first), followed by the satellite companies (second) who offered larger audiences and additional revenue to the station owners. Oh, the siren call of bigger and better.

Subsequently, these same "distribution" companies started buying up the very broadcasters they were distributing, thus consolidating their overall control.

Next, with plenty of crocodile tears for the benefit of the CRTC, came the slashing of local news and entertainment programming, all the while crying about how unaffordable it all was. Why did they buy it all then??? Simple. To create monopolies, thus controlling all aspects from creativity to broadcasting to distribution.

Now, with the monopolies firmly in place, we're told to keep paying outrageous prices for the current packages on offer or subscribe to the skinny basic. Have you looked over the skinny basic channel selection? LOL

How we ever ended up with the distributors owning the broadcasters is beyond me. Fine job, CRTC.

Like many Canadians, I've rabidly supported 'shop Canadian' my whole adult life, but I've had it with being held ransom by these Canadian monopolies. Let American competition in.


 

Of course, there are plenty of people who use the so-called "grey market," which allows them to receive either Dish Network or Direct TV from the U.S. You see their dishes all over the city even though it's illegal to receive those signals here. But for many, if people are paying for the service they get, which is the hallmark of the grey market, those taking part feel they're compensating the service providers and therefore it's fine. (I'm not talking about the old card altering system, that would go down every other week.)

I've seen what some of these people are getting on their boxes. It is 1,000% better than anything available on Canadian cable. And even with the difference in the dollar, it's roughly the same price for what they get. And no simsub and forced Can Con as a bonus. It's expensive and it's not for everybody. But it IS going on and Bell is especially aggressive at going after the providers on this side of the border. 

That said, I certainly agree with Dial Twister. The CRTC gatekeepers weren't watching as the enemy sneaked through and now that they've taken over, the honchos from Hull have no idea how to fix it. The answer, to me, is simple: the more competition, the better. If that means allowing Americans or European companies or Martians in here to join the battle, so much the better. The Bells and Rogers of the world have proven they won't play fair, with copious studies confirming that Canada has the highest cell phone rates of almost any country on the planet. The reason - a lack of real competition and outright avarice from you-know-who.

In the U.S., if you don't like what your current TV provider is doing, there are no shortage of places you can go - Direct TV, Dish Network, Time Warner, Verizon, Comcast and Cox, just to name a few, will be happy to have you switch. Not all of them service all areas, but just watch what happens when one of them raises prices or drops services. People leave in droves, letting their dollars do the talking. 

Unfortunately, in Canada Bell, Rogers, and Shaw don't provide many differences in fees or choice. And so Canadians live in frustration, which grow and grow, getting less and paying more. I feel confident in saying that Rogers and Bell are the two most hated companies in the country. Just watch the newspaper comments from the general public whenever their latest outrage is reported. (Those papers that still allow comments.)  And I don't doubt for a minute that if one of them were ever to go down in flames, there wouldn't be a tear shed for either of them. When that day comes, if it comes, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

Gordon Gekko was wrong - greed isn't good. It buys you nothing but enmity.  

apologies for getting slightly off-track but if there was a thread titled "most hated companies in the country" my vote would go to the Canada Protection Plan.     "If you're between the ages of 18 & 80. . . blah blah blah".    Red maple leaf logo with CPP thereon likely confuses our most vulnerable people into buying what they could easily assume is government-sponsored life insurance.   

FRAUD on a massive scale

Prod Guy wrote:

Bell's offering is a giant middle finger to the CRTC.  
 
 
 

Four channels NO ONE would want instead of, say, NBC,ABC, CBS and Fox.

Paging CRTC Chair Jean-Pierre-Blais....paging CRTC Chair Jean-Pierre Blais....