• 12 Billion Class Action to proceed against Canadian Carriers over System Access Fees

    The Supreme Court of Canadian is allowing a 12 billion suit to proceed. It's regarding carriers making customers believe that system access fee was required.

    http://www.thestar.com/business/arti...em-access-fees

    Anyone here never pay a system access fee?
    This article was originally published in forum thread: 12 Billion Class Action to proceed against Canadian Carriers over System Access Fees started by howard View original post
    Comments 43 Comments
    1. TLS2000's Avatar
      TLS2000 -
      About time! Now we need another lawsuit about the misleading name of the GRRF, which implies it's a government fee (even if the small print says it isn't mandated).
    1. ceredon's Avatar
      ceredon -
      If this is successful, I expect their other businesses, like cable and landlines and long distance, will also see similar lawsuits. They also charged access fees and network fees over and above the plan and option fees.

      Bad behavior has consequences. Nice to see they might learn this lesson. Who knows, we might even see some of the local apologists partake of the spoils.
    1. AahH's Avatar
      AahH -
      Quote Originally Posted by ceredon View Post
      If this is successful, I expect their other businesses, like cable and landlines and long distance, will also see similar lawsuits. They also charged access fees and network fees over and above the plan and option fees.

      Bad behavior has consequences. Nice to see they might learn this lesson. Who knows, we might even see some of the local apologists partake of the spoils.
      Agreed...

      This entire thing from the get go of analod and TDMA days was a money grab... they could have EASILY included these costs into the price you pay..

      This is like saying the Pizza store has to tack on a $0.50 fee for the cheese...

      WTF? this is a MUST if you want to call it PIZZA you clodheads! This is not extra toppings..

      And then charge another fee for the tomato sauce...
    1. TLS2000's Avatar
      TLS2000 -
      It's worse than a pizza store tacking on $.50 for cheese, because the SAF was not optional. You can tell a pizza store to skip the cheese.
    1. robsaw's Avatar
      robsaw -
      Do you really think there is a difference is what was and is charged between A+B+C=D or simply charging "D"?

      The ONLY factor here is whether during the time period in question the fee was implied, without sufficient disclosure, as being a gov't mandated fee.
    1. TLS2000's Avatar
      TLS2000 -
      I know for a fact that I've been told by dealers it was a government fee. If it's a mandatory fee, it should be included in the base price. It's insane that our country allows advertisers to post a low price but charge a higher price.
    1. some-gei's Avatar
      some-gei -
      I remember on several occasions being told it was a government fee too.

      On an unrelated note, my Rogers bill arbitrarily went up $15 this month for no reason. After calling in and waiting on hold for 1 full hour, they told me it was indeed a mistake and they would fix it and my online balance would reflect the corrected balance.

      Here I am 24 hours and of course the balance has not been adjusted.

      Moral of the story: I hate Rogers. And I hope they pay for this scam.
    1. toolcube's Avatar
      toolcube -
      I would love for the social media team to chime in here with something useful...afterall, this is something that impacts all customers who've paid SAFs at one point or another. Also, let's talk about that ridiculous GRRF that no other carrier charges...
    1. alexanderdragon's Avatar
      alexanderdragon -
      You know, as long as my total bill is lower, I am happy with or without SAF or GRRF.
      But thing is, they might not charge SAF, but the plan goes up, and end up we need to pay more.
    1. Steve Punter's Avatar
      Steve Punter -
      You actually believe that after the providers fork over 12 billion dollars that you're bill be LOWER? What are you smoking and where do we get some?
    1. ceredon's Avatar
      ceredon -
      Quote Originally Posted by robsaw View Post
      Do you really think there is a difference is what was and is charged between A+B+C=D or simply charging "D"?

      The ONLY factor here is whether during the time period in question the fee was implied, without sufficient disclosure, as being a gov't mandated fee.
      Of course there is a world of difference. By breaking the fee out into a separate but mandatory fee, they are able to
      a) advertise prices lower than they actually are
      b) convince people that their high prices are necessary and even required by government mandate
    1. ceredon's Avatar
      ceredon -
      Quote Originally Posted by Steve Punter View Post
      You actually believe that after the providers fork over 12 billion dollars that you're bill be LOWER? What are you smoking and where do we get some?
      I am sure they will raised their rates. What's the alternative? Allow them to skate away with ill gotten gains? If they do choose to raise their rates, then they become even less attractive. They would only have to raise their rates if they are found to have effectively stolen this money from us. They raise rates and the alternative carriers become that much more attractive. Maybe they deserve a chance. They haven't stolen anything from me.
    1. AahH's Avatar
      AahH -
      Guys, the MAIN REASON why they called it a government fee was so that they could increase/decrease and play around with profits without changing your contract...

      THAT my friends is the FRAUD!!!!
    1. alexanderdragon's Avatar
      alexanderdragon -
      Quote Originally Posted by Steve Punter View Post
      You actually believe that after the providers fork over 12 billion dollars that you're bill be LOWER? What are you smoking and where do we get some?
      And you my firend, should read my post carefully, I mentioned that I know the price will goes up, if the GRRF is removed. And That is my point. So I would rather to pay a seperate GRRF, but get the total bill (GRRF+ Base Plan) low, than Paying $5 more without a GRRF. The danger is Rogers might just raise all plan price $5, and no GRRF. Like when they ditched the SAF, and get the GRRF, plan price went up. Since GRRF is $5 cheaper than SAF, but plan price went up more than just $5.
    1. ceraf's Avatar
      ceraf -
      I'd assume that even if carriers are forced to remove the SAF or GRRF, they'd just increase the price on other services (like CID) to balance it out.
    1. ceredon's Avatar
      ceredon -
      Quote Originally Posted by ceraf View Post
      I'd assume that even if carriers are forced to remove the SAF or GRRF, they'd just increase the price on other services (like CID) to balance it out.
      Which is exactly what they should have done to begin with.
    1. howard's Avatar
      howard -
      If the carriers lose this they'll have to add a LSF to our bills. Lawsuit fee.
    1. DataDude's Avatar
      DataDude -
      Quote Originally Posted by howard View Post
      If the carriers lose this they'll have to add a LSF to our bills. Lawsuit fee.
      Oh, boy. I can hear the Rogers employees already. "It never said in your contract that we can't impose a law suit fee, so that mandatory extra $9.99 on your bill is not a reason to get out of your contract without ECF."

      This should be interesting!
    1. Guest 252's Avatar
      Guest 252 -
      When they're done with that they can get on Videotron's *** for charging essentially the same fee's on illico (calling them HD access fees).

      The Canadian Telco's got their data cash cow shut down by Apple when the iphone came to Canada, now its time for the SAF. I don't pay (and wouldn't) a SAF but in the past when I did, I always made sure I had retention credits that not only paid the SAF but you could say that I was charging the Telco to have access to ME :-) I call it the MAF.
    1. Supa_Fly's Avatar
      Supa_Fly -
      Quote Originally Posted by AahH View Post
      Guys, the MAIN REASON why they called it a government fee was so that they could increase/decrease and play around with profits without changing your contract...

      THAT my friends is the FRAUD!!!!
      BINGO!

      I recall working for wireless support years ago and being trained first to say it was a government imposed fee that needed to be charged for each line so that in case of an audit Rogers could show & submit the fee back to the CRTC. (something close to that verbiage) Then being retrained to NOT stated ECF was government imposed fee ... just before the first lawsuit against Rogers showed up - 14/15yrs + in the past.

      I hope there is a SPECIFIC claus after the lawsuit is successful that Rogers canNOT imposed significantly increased fees (says 2yrs) else it nullify's anyone person's contract with Rogers as a breach by Rogers.