Offline
Bell was the largest of several cable/sat companies that thought they could slip this by the CRTC. The giant, along with Cogeco, Eastlink and Sask Tel, had all applied to the Commission to up their rates from $25 a month for a basic package to $28. This after the Commission made a big deal a few years ago of introducing a "skinny basic" package it hoped would save consumers some money.
But thankfully, the CRTC denied the request. Check out this strongly worded slap down:
"In the Commission’s view, the applicants did not submit or provide any evidence to suggest that the current maximum rate of $25 is no longer economically viable for them as retailers. Irrespective of whether or not it is viable, the basic service is an instrument that was designed to benefit the consumer by facilitating choice and economic decisions in a marketplace where broadcasting distribution undertakings (BDUs) have multiple options to recoup their costs.
"Moreover, the applicants did not provide any detailed, costed analysis that demonstrates that the cost borne by the BDU for the provision of the basic service has increased as a result of inflation or otherwise, to the extent that a permanent increase of 12% to the maximum allowable retail rate and the implementation of an annual inflationary index are warranted.
"Given the strength of the BDU industry, the Commission finds that there is not a financial justification for the proposed increase that would outweigh the goal of providing Canadians with an affordable entry-level basic service.
"In the Commission’s view, the applicants have not demonstrated compelling evidence justifying the proposed increase to the maximum price for the small basic service and sees no direct benefit to approving the application for Canadians."
I rarely agree with a lot of things the CRTC does, but kudos to them for recognizing naked greed when they see it. I just wonder what these guys will raise next to try and compensate for this setback.
CRTC Decision
Offline
I remember this one RA. You and I tussled about it almost a year ago. Seem to recall that you thought it was "the craziest request yet from the CRTC". You felt the CRTC asking for input from the public was a waste of time since nobody wants a rate increase in price. You felt that Bell and the others would get the increase anyway, since they had the CRTC commissioner in their pockets.
The public input, however large or small would have an impact in the decision.
Also sends a good message to these companies that next time they want an increase, chances are the public will be consulted. Should make the applicants think twice before attempting another "naked greed" increase.
Offline
I'll admit this took me by surprise, although pleasantly. Let's hope the era of the Bell/Rogers types getting whatever they want from the CRTC Chair Ian Scott (a former telco lobbyist) days is over now that Vicki Eatrides is in charge.
I highly doubt that will be the case, but I'll take the win wherever it comes. And I'm not even a cable subscriber, so I have no stake in the game. (I refuse to do business with either of them.)
But seeing consumers win against these guys so rarely happens, it has to be noted and celebrated. Even if it's only three bucks a month.
Offline
RadioActive wrote:
I'll admit this took me by surprise, although pleasantly. Let's hope the era of the Bell/Rogers types getting whatever they want from the CRTC Chair Ian Scott (a former telco lobbyist) days is over now that Vicki Eatrides is in charge.
A friend asks: Does this mean Bell will simply raise their internet rates $3 to make up for this rejected request?