Rogers further defends 36-month financing

The objection to the new phone financing plans from the likes of the Competition Bureau is based on an incorrect understanding of device financing arrangements, according to Rogers Communications Inc.’s reply in the CRTC’s ongoing examination of the 36-month phone financing plans that hit the Canadian wireless market over the summer. The plans are a way for both wireless service providers and consumers themselves to account for the increasingly expensive nature of new cell phones, and the move away from the handset subsidy model is inevitable as the costs of the phones rise, Rogers writes in its reply, made public by the CRTC on Wednesday The Competition Bureau attempts, Rogers writes in the reply, “to belittle the positive impact of longer term device financing arrangements on affordability.” The financing plans, Rogers continues, “mitigate the impact of the increase on consumers,” given the rapidly rising cost of smartphones. Last month, the Competition Bureau weighed in on the dispute around phone financing, rhetorically asking the CRTC in an intervention that “if new competition develops, but consumers must pay hundreds of dollars in order to switch, how will those consumers take advantage of the lower prices, greater choice, and increased levels of innovation that are characteristic of greater competition?” The Wireless Code, instituted in 2013, prohibits cancellation fees after two years. Consumer advocates have argued that the remaining balance consumers would have to pay off in order to take their devices to a new providers wireless service agreement constitutes a “switching fee.” Rogers points out in its reply that Quebecor Inc.’s Videotron, Bragg Communications Inc.’s Eastlink, Tbaytel, and Saskatchewan Telecommunications Holding Corp. “welcome the opportunity to compete with competitive longer term financing offerings, thus rejecting the theoretical and unfounded concerns of the Bureau,” as well as those of Shaw Communications Inc., which has also objected to the new plans. “Any and all device financing options should be permitted,” SaskTel writes in its own reply, “so long as customers do not commit to longer than 2 years on a wireless service plan as specified in the Wireless Code. The Market has evolved such that all consumers may purchase a device of their choice and have a separate wireless service plan, and this capability has been driven by industry market forces.”

Rogers further defends 36-month financing

Brief | November 1, 2019

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Rogers further defends 36-month financing

Brief | November 1, 2019

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Telus’ arguments for incumbent access to wholesale regime not supported by competitors

CRTC finalizes terms of Uvagut TV distribution

Bell won’t participate in subsidized broadband projects if wholesale access for Big Three continues, signs agreement with CNOC

CRTC announces changes to Broadband Fund

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us