Canadian Cable Companies Continue to Shaft their Customers

[Rob Williams]

From our front-page news:

As I live in a relatively small town in eastern Canada, our choices for cable, phone and Internet service is limited. It comes down to two main choices, Rogers and Bell, both which feature certain trade-offs (like reliability and junk mail en masse). As a subscriber of Rogers, I received a letter in the mail a few weeks ago that stated that the cable portion of our bill would be increased 1.5% to comply with the CRTC's new LPIF fund. Let me give you some quick background.

The CRTC is the "Canadian Radio/Television and Telecommunications Commission", who oversee the regulation of media all over Canada. The LPIF is the "Local Programming Improvement Fund" which the CRTC established in order to help both improve and support local programming. To make this happen, the CRTC ruled that Canadian cable/satellite companies were required to contribute 1.5% of their gross broadcasting revenues, which would amount to around $100 million total for the year.

That sounds great for local programming, but it turns out it's bad for cable and satellite subscribers, since most of these companies are, rather than taking the hit themselves, continuing to nickel and dime their customers by passing the fee onto them, as mentioned above. So far, Rogers Cable and Bell have been verified to be doing this, but in checking with people who subscribe to services in other parts of Canada, I've yet to find another company to do this.

The LPIF was established as a way to have these mammoth companies contribute to local programming, which many find integral and important. But rather, they shift the cost over to their faithful customers, which I find truly ridiculous. Sure, it's 1.5%, but it's not the money that matters. It's the principle. I contacted the CRTC to get their comment on things, and the response I received was, (bold is theirs) "Given their reported profits, the CRTC is of the view that there is no justification to pass the cost on to consumers.

Enough said. I find it insane that companies as rich as these, are forcing their loyal customers, who already pay out the rear, for something that they are supposed to be paying themselves. If you're a Canadian reader, I'd love to know if your cable provider is forcing the fee on you, or not, and if you are in the US, please let us know if companies down there are like they are up here.
​

 

[Phineas]

Cable Thieves and their Cel Phone cousins

To understand the situation you need to study the relationship between the late Ted Rogers, for whom I once worked, and the Liberal Party of Canada.

Rogers, a stingy visionary, practically invented the modern cable giant, and became, through donations and association THE authority for the emerging cable industry in Canada and much of the US.

Consequently, the laws were pretty much written by his marketing and engineering staff for the government, providing him with what was, at first, a monopoly in much of the country.

It is now a bit more diverse, but there is no real competition.

Now, here's the real problem, he did the same thing with the cell phone industry. He also invented negative billing" and "system access fee".

 

[b1lk1]

Cogeco RULES for cable/internet with far better prices than Rogers.

Koodo also kicks the crap out of Rogers for cell phones.

There is competition, you just gotta look for it.

 

[Rob Williams]

Hi Phineas and welcome to the forums!

Thanks for your informative post. It's always great to hear from someone who has intimate knowledge with the subject at hand. I admit though, when I read, "He also invented negative billing" and "system access fee".", I was really, really close to punching the wall ;-) The system access fee in particular is one of the biggest scams I've ever seen. $7 or so a month just to have the privilege of using my phone? Words can't describe how truly ridiculous that is.

There is competition, you just gotta look for it.

There is competition, but not everywhere. Like I said, around here, we have two choices between Internet providers, and both are horrible. In all fairness, Rogers does offer a rather reliable service, but it's everything else that comes along with it that makes me want to move from them so badly. Bell only offers DSL, and just by looking at their website, I can't say I'd ever be confident in moving (I can't even find home Internet information on their site).

For cell service, you're right... there is some competition around here. I never took them seriously to be honest, but lately, a lot of people I know have been moving to Koodo. Just in the past few months, I know of three people who moved there (including you), so I'm HIGHLY considering doing the same. It's not like Rogers offers me anything special here... in fact, they just overcharge me for a lot of things I don't even use.

Then there's TV... Bell looks to offer robust service, and they even seem to offer more channels than Rogers does, even where HD programming is concerned. I'd check out their prices, but again, their website is total junk. I might have to go into a reseller around here soon and discuss things.

It's my ultimate goal to move away from Rogers as soon as possible. I'm not totally gung-ho with Bell, either, but at least they didn't constantly send me junk mail and up our bill every few months when I was with them before. By the looks of things, I'll have no choice but to stick with Rogers for Internet, though, given that Bell is sketchy as heck where that's concerned. I don't want to take chances there, for obvious reasons.