Cancelling your Rogers contract and getting your money back.
Fabian Rodriguez
I now have most the information I need to go ahead and bring Rogers to
small claims court, after cancelling my contract.
As it turns out, Quebec consumer laws require that you firt pay the
penalty, then get reimbursed.
You need to send a "mise en demeure" (demand letter) to both Rogers
(the provider) and HTC (the manufacturer). Linky:
http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/sujets/glossaire/mise-a.htm
http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/francais/sujets/glossaire/mise.htm
Each one of us has different stories. Here is mine (most of it):
http://www.fabianrodriguez.com/blog/2010/02/03/rogers-canada-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-2195
And here's another one:
http://android.mahram.ca/
I'll be writing up my letters in the next few days and cancelling my
contract. I'll then post my templates here. If anyone gets to send
their letter first, please share your templates here. I urge anyone
having the same problems to also share their story here or in any
public website, then link it from here.
Cheers.
davidm
Hi Fabian,
I'm afraid even as a consumer advocate I don't find your arguments to
Rogers very convincing.
As I said to you in our other conversation, in order to be successful,
there has to be a very specific, reasonable request everyone will get
behind.
Otherwise, people cannot be bothered, as typified in
http://groups.google.com/group/android-users-in-canada/browse_thread/thread/f6cdef95e70e73ad/584bc3353c01d825#584bc3353c01d825,
their expectations from corporations are very low, or it "works for
them" (after substantial inconvenience, see Yannick's response). This
defeats any ability to make noise to get attention, to organize behind
reasonable demands than most consumers will agree to.
If I were to write a reasonable charter for mobile providers, it would
look like this:
1. The consumer is paying for a certain amount of bandwidth and voice
usage per month, they can use it however they want with whatever
devices they want, as long as they are not disrupting the network.
2. If the carrier is offering extended contracts, the user should have
reasonably priced options if their device is lost, stolen or damaged,
or it proves inappropriate for any reason. An upfront charge with
replacement devices at a pro-rated cost is reasonable.
3. Everyone's dealings with the company should be the same, based on
clear rules, we should not be hearing about exceptional offers to
individuals when we are treating in a substandard way, after being
exasperated by inconsistent and apathetic service.
There has clearly been some trickery on Rogers' part. We are all here
primarily because we respond to ideas of an alternative, Linux/open
source based operating system which we can understand, participate in
the community in a meaningful way, build apps for and work with the
low level operating system. Rogers did claim the Android would be an
"open," "revolution" phone. They created a campaign around these ideas
and specifically the Android devices. to entrap persons such as
ourselves who would respond to these ideas. When they realized the
Dream they had sold would not be upgradeable, they made an offer to
upgrade Dream users to the Magic, specifically stating this was the
reason. There was no mention of the 911 problem, and it's noteworthy
that the 911 problem was fixed months before on community provided
distributions of Android. The upgrade offer was cancelled prematurely,
and after a period of time we were told the upgrade was due to the 911
problem, and now that it had been fixed the upgrade would no longer be
available. Android users who didn't want to lose data and eventually
voice access were forced to "upgrade" their devices to a distribution
that doesn't support community upgrading.
Clearly, there are mistakes and dishonesty on Rogers' part here.
Putting forward a personal grab bag of ideas may get you out of your
contract, but you'll be right back where you started in two months.
Having a clear, organized statement of requests is likely to be more
effective.
Mobile devices are the future of the Internet, just like the "real"
Internet it needs to be more than a channel to keep corporations alive
and feed us commercials. Rogers is already making very good profits,
they should be more than happy with charging $1200 a year to provide
basic service and let us run whatever device we want.
Some people will say they can already run any third party device on
the Rogers network, but they're operating in a grey zone, until this
is clarified we can be forced to buy a Rogers provided device whether
we want it or not, and issues such as billing, access and support will
always be in question.
Clarifying that we can run any device on the Rogers network will
result in a a clear, open market for devices, leading to greater
consumer confidence and participation, more choice with easier to
upgrade devices, and better prices - like computers using "regular"
internet.
David
On Feb 8, 8:58 am, Fabian Rodriguez <magic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I now have most the information I need to go ahead and bring Rogers to
> small claims court, after cancelling my contract.
>
> As it turns out, Quebec consumer laws require that you firt pay the
> penalty, then get reimbursed.
>
> You need to send a "mise en demeure" (demand letter) to both Rogers
> (the provider) and HTC (the manufacturer). Linky:http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/sujets/glossaire/mise-a.htmhttp://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/francais/sujets/glossaire/mise.htm
>
> Each one of us has different stories. Here is mine (most of it):http://www.fabianrodriguez.com/blog/2010/02/03/rogers-canada-sucks/co...
F. Rodriguez
I am not sure what you mean. People subscribed to this group are only
but a tiny number of the total customers Rogers has in this situation.
I don't expect a sudden influx of all customers to show up here and
rally to this cause.
I am cancelling my service because it is agains my ethics to continue
paying for a service I can't use as initially advertised. That is only
one of many steps I'll take.
Advocating for better services from cell phone companies is another
matter, to which I can contribute sharing my troubles. Those are
facts, not opinions. I don't see what is unreasonable about sharing my
experience and showing how expecting it would be a "revolution" is
nothing but a blatant lie.
I am all for civilized talk, but in this context no one has the same
definition of "reasonable".
Cancelling a contract and obtaining hard cash reimbursement is the
only language that any company understands. They are, after all, a
business and such is their main objective: to generate profits.
[..]
> Clearly, there are mistakes and dishonesty on Rogers' part here.
> Putting forward a personal grab bag of ideas may get you out of your
> contract, but you'll be right back where you started in two months.
> Having a clear, organized statement of requests is likely to be more
> effective.
I understand what you express. I am not sure how I will be right back
where I started. I will be wasting less money and time, and I won't be
financing a deceiptive company. I am all for global actions, but my
personal actions should be open to all so they can decide if they go
the same way or not.
The bottom line is many people just won't bother demanding proper
reimbursement of unused or useless services and devices until they see
someone that succesfully does so. It's not a suprise such actions are
often initially exceptions, until enough people start demanding the
same *fair* equal treatment. At least that's my opinion.
> Mobile devices are the future of the Internet, just like the "real"
> Internet it needs to be more than a channel to keep corporations alive
> and feed us commercials. Rogers is already making very good profits,
> they should be more than happy with charging $1200 a year to provide
> basic service and let us run whatever device we want.
Agreed. Right now I am really not pleased that their reps even try to
bully us saying "it's illegal"!
> Some people will say they can already run any third party device on
> the Rogers network, but they're operating in a grey zone, until this
> is clarified we can be forced to buy a Rogers provided device whether
> we want it or not, and issues such as billing, access and support will
> always be in question.
We're not forced to keep the service, in fact that's my point. If
Rogers can't get its act together I can't care less, other companies
will come and do it. And if that doesn't happen, I am not ready to
finance them until they do.
> Clarifying that we can run any device on the Rogers network will
> result in a a clear, open market for devices, leading to greater
> consumer confidence and participation, more choice with easier to
> upgrade devices, and better prices - like computers using "regular"
> internet.
Quitting their service so they notice this is my way of putting such
pressure. I am not asking everyone to agree, but if more people do
this in a consistent, organized way, I believe it's the only way this
can change.
Just looking at what happens when you threaten to leave the service is
really eye-opening. No one should ever have to do that in order to get
*faire* billing & services.
davidm
Hi Fabian,
On Feb 8, 11:04 am, "F. Rodriguez" <magic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am not sure what you mean. People subscribed to this group are only
> but a tiny number of the total customers Rogers has in this situation.
> I don't expect a sudden influx of all customers to show up here and
> rally to this cause.
Very true, and this situation will repeat itself again and again
without any solution, resulting in a lot of unhappy people who simply
want to use carrier internet like they do "regular" internet.
> Advocating for better services from cell phone companies is another
> matter, to which I can contribute sharing my troubles. Those are
> facts, not opinions. I don't see what is unreasonable about sharing my
> experience and showing how expecting it would be a "revolution" is
> nothing but a blatant lie.
I agree with you completely, but it's important to evolve what is
reasonable required.
> I am all for civilized talk, but in this context no one has the same
> definition of "reasonable".
If the discussion isn't organized and reasonable according to most
people's definition, it will go nowhere in any meaningful way.
> Cancelling a contract and obtaining hard cash reimbursement is the
> only language that any company understands. They are, after all, a
> business and such is their main objective: to generate profits.
This is an excuse, on behalf of corporations that people trot out with
surprising regularity. Why so eager to apologize on the behalf of
corporations? We have rarely had any sort of 'pure capitalism,' as it
would quickly turn into predictable monopolies as it has in the past.
Today corporations are shaped by governments using punitive measures
and incentives to serve individuals and countries. Corporations have
the privilege of access to these markets based on reasonable
requirements. Access to the real Internet on good terms, using the
devices and operating systems of our choice, is a reasonable
requirement. The "wired Internet" formed in a very free, competitive
way. I'd be inclined to think it could be less expensive to make
wireless networks, but in any case I find any requirements that the
wireless net should be different to be ill advised.
> > Clearly, there are mistakes and dishonesty on Rogers' part here.
> > Putting forward a personal grab bag of ideas may get you out of your
> > contract, but you'll be right back where you started in two months.
> > Having a clear, organized statement of requests is likely to be more
> > effective.
>
> I understand what you express. I am not sure how I will be right back
> where I started. I will be wasting less money and time, and I won't be
> financing a deceiptive company. I am all for global actions, but my
> personal actions should be open to all so they can decide if they go
> the same way or not.
Unless you're planning to go without wireless service, how can you
expect to end up at a less deceptive, more reasonable company if
you're so willing to make excuses on their behalf? Companies can just
expect customers to powerlessly bounce between them, if they can make
sure their offerings are about the same they all make money and can
call the shots.
> The bottom line is many people just won't bother demanding proper
> reimbursement of unused or useless services and devices until they see
> someone that succesfully does so. It's not a suprise such actions are
> often initially exceptions, until enough people start demanding the
> same *fair* equal treatment. At least that's my opinion.
Absolutely.
> > Some people will say they can already run any third party device on
> > the Rogers network, but they're operating in a grey zone, until this
> > is clarified we can be forced to buy a Rogers provided device whether
> > we want it or not, and issues such as billing, access and support will
> > always be in question.
>
> We're not forced to keep the service, in fact that's my point. If
> Rogers can't get its act together I can't care less, other companies
> will come and do it. And if that doesn't happen, I am not ready to
> finance them until they do.
Why should they when the going's so good? The very last thing carriers
want is for consumers to have a real choice, to even expect to have
reasonable conditions. And since startup of a feasible national
wireless carrier is so expensive, or must rely on another carrier,
there's no way out of this in the foreseeable future.
Canadian carriers all switching to the same radio standard, like most
of Europe and other regions, is a huge step forward for consumers, now
we need to be able to choose between carriers more easily, and use our
own devices and operating systems, without having to beg for
reasonable terms or work in grey zones.
David
davidm
By the way, if I were starting a wireless carrier today, I would make
sure there were lots and lots of groups that said my service "sucked"
and used lots of other immature, inarticulate words that any
reasonable person, who will only be using advanced services in a few
years, would immediately dismiss and form a negative, petulant
attitude about "special" demands of wireless internet.
I would make sure to trivialize the needs of advanced users, whether
they're developers or simply enthusiasts, even though they're paying
quite a bit more for service.
I would pull out issues like "911 fix" to make sure my services had a
special status, even though the 911 problem was fixed months ago in
community distributions, and this is not a requirement on any other
Internet or telephone connected device, and is not very likely to be
an effective in the majority of rescue cases (since it's only accurate
to within 300 meters, and most people will be able to respond to a
call).
I would make sure all my front line workers were badly informed about
basic issues, and quickly form a hardened anti-customer attitude. I
would make sure that those who are promoted are those who focused on
pushing the company's rights, not the customer's wishes, despite any
potentially mutually beneficial relationship. The other workers can
burn out.
I would make sure customer service is not consistent, so no one really
knows what to expect, pray for a friendly, knowledgeable rep, and when
they do get any kind of concession, they feel it's a major victory
they should keep secret or gloat with over other consumers.
I would make sure I have a wide array of incompatible devices that are
branded by their manufacturer, rather than their operating system, so
customers would only expect to buy certain features, not long term
capabilities, and could never get everything they want on one device.
I would blame my restrictions on the demands of these manufacturers
wherever possible.
I would make it very difficult for customers to upgrade or replace
their devices, without offering pro-rated terms and bizarre
requirements to break contracts, because.. actually I have no idea why
they do this (except of course for the requirement to extend the
term).
I would make sure customers felt it was pretty cool to be able to
scurry around like rats to sneakily run their "special" device on my
network, paying exorbitant rates in a half legitimate market for third
party devices, subject to unexpected fees, loss of service and
substandard support.
I would form two companies to give the impression of more competition
when really there are only minor differences, and consumers can't get
all the features they want from one carrier.
F. Rodriguez
David your long messages are not helping. We all have limited time. We
agree on most points. But I'll address one part of your email that I
feel is not accurate.
[...]
> Today corporations are shaped by governments using punitive measures
> and incentives to serve individuals and countries. Corporations have
> the privilege of access to these markets based on reasonable
> requirements. Access to the real Internet on good terms, using the
> devices and operating systems of our choice, is a reasonable
> requirement.
Not at all. Powerful lobbies exist that protect such companies. The
"real Internet" is a major disruptive force and in fact many companies
offer "unlimited messaging", "unlimited web" and other non-sensical
products which are provided among partners (ie. Yahoo mail or MSN).
Forget about POP3, IMAP, SIP, XMPP, etc. All these means "end of
control" for them.
> [...]The "wired Internet" formed in a very free, competitive
> way. I'd be inclined to think it could be less expensive to make
> wireless networks, but in any case I find any requirements that the
> wireless net should be different to be ill advised.
The "Wired Internet" came out of military requirements, following
military specs. It then evolved through academia, and finally into
corporate world. That may explain some of the problems corporations
have in "getting it".
f.
davidm
I'm well aware of the history of the Internet and the potential forces
we face. I should have remembered that most people have the attention
span of a gnat today. ;)
David
Fabian Rodriguez
- Rogers called me back, briefly indicated I could do whatever I
wanted (even with 2 pages of grief & problems).
- I'll cancel my contract and pay, then go to petites créances. My new
provider will be Fido (an old account that I got back, without
contract) until I decide if I switch to another place. The savings
mean I 'll get back my penalty money in ~7 months.
- I'll probably switch to Telus and have another Fido account moved to
it, I am figuring out how to get best leverage.
F.