An employee works inside a Rogers Wireless retail store in Vancouver, B.C..DARRYL DYCK/The Canadian Press
Although Rogers Wireless customers may call 911 for free (I'm sure that's top of mind in an emergency - thank God I don't have to pay for this call!) - they are nonetheless charged a monthly, 50-cent fee by the carrier for the pleasure. As of April 12th, that " 911 Emergency Access Fee" is going up by a quarter to 75-cents. The reason for the hike is not explained, though customers who have queries about the matter are encouraged to go through the "Contact Us" section of the Rogers website, since this is apparently easier than simply explaining it on the website and saving people the bother.
The fee increase - which many customers will likely interpret as a cash grab - applies only to Rogers wireless customers who signed up before Oct. 5th, 2009. All subscribers who signed up after that date are lucky enough to instead be paying the " Government Regulatory Recovery Fee." This charge is not at all mandated by the government, but is in fact designed to compensate Rogers for all thing things the provincial and federal governments make them do (like offering 911 for free, for instance, or providing deaf or hard-of-hearing Canadians with a relay operator).
When I asked a Rogers spokesperson about it, they e-mailed back, "We are bringing the rate in line with those charged by other Canadian wireless service providers. Some of our competitors have been charging $0.75 for similar types of rate plans for some time."
Well, sort of.
Telus did charge 75-cents for its 911 fee, but has since dropped it. The company, of course, raised the basic price of its monthly plans shortly after it eliminated their "System Access Fee," though a spokesperson for the company said the sum total of the company's moves results in savings for the consumer. Bell Mobility, likewise, eliminated their own system access and largely did away with their 911 fees (there are still some provincial fees), but also raised basic rate plans. Other companies have simply renamed fees and rejigged the prices. I am well aware that this paragraph is likely as confusing as a cell phone contract's fine print, by the way, which is probably the macro-level lesson to be learned here.
And so the fine print at the bottom of cellphone bills continues to get longer, even as the much-hated "system access fees" has dissipated to be replaced by newer, more complex acronyms like GRRF - which kind of sounds like the sound a customer makes after seeing it on a bill.
It seems somewhat bizarre to be expanding what are essentially arbitrary fees to ensure increased profitability in an era of increased competition, especially when new competitors are using this type of incumbent wireless provider behaviour in their marketing material (Buy us, we're simple).
Sure, Rogers will likely keep its flanker brand, Fido, simple, as the other incumbents do (Telus with Koodoo and Bell with Solo and Virgin Mobile). And sure, companies like Rogers, Bell and Telus have better, larger networks than those of the new entrants like Wind Mobile. But why toss fodder to your rivals? In the United States, Verizon Wireless has taken AT&T to task in TV commercials that mock spotty network coverage.
Competition's only going to get worse here. One industry source suggests the new entrants - which don't have landline customers like the incumbents, and don't need to worry about "cannibalizing" their own subscriber base with prices that are ridiculously low - should push hard with a "cut-the-cord" campaign. But if incumbents continue to expand the fine print, rather than fold it up and toss it in the trash heap of "things we could do when there were only three cellphone companies," perhaps new entrants should continue to hit hard on the simplicity angle.