When Rogers announced plans to buy Shaw, Canada’s Competition Bureau fought the merger, citing concerns that the elimination of Shaw as a competitor would lead to harm for consumers, including price increases.
At the time, Rogers CEO Tony Staffieri pledged lower prices for customers and brushed aside competition concerns.
Earlier this year, Rogers upped the price of some cellphone, internet and home phone plans.
Should’ve stopped them from buying Shaw.
Their TV boxes are garbage too, my parents cannot get reliable 5GHz WiFi from the “gateway” and the devices cannot be configured to 2.4GHz only which works fine until it thinks the 5GHz signal is strong enough and automatically switches before dropping again. The only “solutions” Rogers provides are to move the router or to buy their overpriced “pod” repeaters.
Or wire in another router, and use the WiFi on that. It’s not great, with the double-N (most of Rogers routers are buggy in bridge-mode), but IMHO, it’s better than using their WiFi.
I seem to remember some list of “enforceable conditions” set out by the government for this merger. So those were bullshit, I guess.
Another W for the telecom cartel.
On one hand I think it’s ok for rental prices to go up as device prices increase. But that should never happen after a customer has a device, at that point the device price was already locked in. If they rent an additional device? Sure that one could cost more, but not the existing ones
Honestly I would love to see laws that make rental units without the option to purchase illegal. (With appropriate limits on how much the purchase option costs)
Nah, they’ve already made their money on the rental within a year. Everything after that is gouging.
That’s why, if you have the option to buy a modem to use with their service, you can save a lot of money.
Never pay a rental fee or a subsidy (i.e. smartphone) if you can afford to buy it outright. That way, you save a ton on these overpriced fees, and you still own the device to sell later of you choose.
