Goodbye Inukshuk

[E2EK1EL]

Interesting article at Stop the Cap where RogersChris pops his head in and doesn't answer any questions about how Rogers can justify a minimum doubling the rate for current subscribers.

The entire Rogers Social Media team are completely useless from day one, they all pop their heads in the answer the oblivious questions and hide under a rock when we give them pressure about Rogers unfair "policy" changes.

Quite honestly, a waste of payroll and a waste of our money (Since we're paying for their fabulous social media services.)

[Eluder]

Nothing Rogers related ever seems bad to you, such a shill.

Sent from my Nexus S using HowardForums

Why complain, people ask questions, I post answers for those questions.
It's really not that complex, you know?
But I get it, many unhappy folks here, but no one seems to really do anything about it other than complain.

[ceredon]

Why complain, people ask questions, I post answers for those questions.
It's really not that complex, you know?
But I get it, many unhappy folks here, but no one seems to really do anything about it other than complain.

No. Big difference between posting answers and posting PR drivel. You don't like complaints against Dear Rogers. We get that. Others have difficulty understanding devotion to a company like Rogers and are perhaps puzzled at corporate cheerleading.

Now, as to the unhappy complainers: if only there was somewhere that they, and others, could have discussions. Somewhere they could talk about Rogers and other things of interest. That would be a magical place. A place of discussion. A forum, if you will. If only.

[ceredon]

You have to pay $15 just for the privilege of being gouged a bit less. That $15 will get me unlimited talk text AND data for a week on my t-mobile SIM.

Guess which one I'll be using?

AKA racket,racketeering.
"Traditionally, the word racket is used to describe a business (or syndicate) that is based on the example of the protection racket and indicates a belief that it is engaged in the sale of a solution to a problem that the institution itself creates or perpetuates, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage."
Problem: obscene Rogers roaming rates.
'Solution': prepay Rogers for services, used or unused.

Its always funny when the Rogers apologists defend Rogers (Robellus in general) practices and their only defense is to describe what seems eerily similar to activities other people go to jail for.

[ircu]

The entire Rogers Social Media team are completely useless from day one, they all pop their heads in the answer the oblivious questions and hide under a rock when we give them pressure about Rogers unfair "policy" changes.

Quite honestly, a waste of payroll and a waste of our money (Since we're paying for their fabulous social media services.)

Just like any other employee the social media team has to tow the company line and like the PR dept these people who post are paid to do so on here rather then in the media like the other PR people do. And like a CSR they have rules which they must follow on what they can / cannot say and debating policy with people is not one of those things.

[DataDude]

Why complain, people ask questions, I post answers for those questions.
It's really not that complex, you know?
But I get it, many unhappy folks here, but no one seems to really do anything about it other than complain.

Eluder,

So what do you propose people do instead? You've already told me in no uncertain terms that you think it's unacceptable to complain about a company with which you do business, but as soon as you leave the company, it's still unacceptable. Basically, in your eyes, customers should tolerate whatever businesses choose to do with their only remedy being to leave, even if it involves paying an exorbatant ECF, an ECF which many people could not afford.

But ECF or not, I'm sorry, but yours just isn't a very constructive way of thinking. Complaining, especially if it involves escalating complaints to the appropriate company channels, ensures that companies know their customers are unhappy and yes, sometimes, that they should change--and history has shown us that this happens. And complaining on a public forum ensures that others know they're not alone and that there's leveridge if Rogers or another company does something crummy. If we don't speak up, who will? Don't forget that we're often the principle negociators for our friends' and loved ones' wireless service, so why should we allow them to pay, say, $0.40 for LD, when we know it's ridiculous (and yes, it is ridiculous)?

In your mind, Rogers is golden and we should shut up and take it. You remind me a lot of the lawyer in the movie Erin Brockovitch I believe it was called, whose company infected a street's water supply with a dangerous chemical then when the people got sick and they were facing a law suit, he basically said "shut up and don't go on a crusade."

[HC - NO "i"]

I don't know about that - in real life I literally don't know a single person who doesn't loathe Rogers. It's almost surreal that a company that is generally hated so much can have so many customers.

Bear in mind here on HoFo we have a lot of Rogers Dealers/Employees or people that are in some other way affiliated with Rogers. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the positive/supporting posts are coming from corporate shills.

some-gei,

I remember you have bashed TELUS and praised Rogers for years regarding "your" kind of network coverage / reliability? So the lesser of the 3 evils?

[Eluder]

Eluder,

So what do you propose people do instead? You've already told me in no uncertain terms that you think it's unacceptable to complain about a company with which you do business, but as soon as you leave the company, it's still unacceptable. Basically, in your eyes, customers should tolerate whatever businesses choose to do with their only remedy being to leave, even if it involves paying an exorbatant ECF, an ECF which many people could not afford.

But ECF or not, I'm sorry, but yours just isn't a very constructive way of thinking. Complaining, especially if it involves escalating complaints to the appropriate company channels, ensures that companies know their customers are unhappy and yes, sometimes, that they should change--and history has shown us that this happens. And complaining on a public forum ensures that others know they're not alone and that there's leveridge if Rogers or another company does something crummy. If we don't speak up, who will? Don't forget that we're often the principle negociators for our friends' and loved ones' wireless service, so why should we allow them to pay, say, $0.40 for LD, when we know it's ridiculous (and yes, it is ridiculous)?

In your mind, Rogers is golden and we should shut up and take it. You remind me a lot of the lawyer in the movie Erin Brockovitch I believe it was called, whose company infected a street's water supply with a dangerous chemical then when the people got sick and they were facing a law suit, he basically said "shut up and don't go on a crusade."

If you can't afford the ECF, you shouldn't sign up in the first place, that's the way I look at it.
Same goes for a mortgage, if you can't afford it, you shouldn't buy the house just because you really really want it. But it seems some people lack serious judgement when it comes to livings beyond their means.

[DataDude]

If you can't afford the ECF, you shouldn't sign up in the first place, that's the way I look at it.
Same goes for a mortgage, if you can't afford it, you shouldn't buy the house just because you really really want it. But it seems some people lack serious judgement when it comes to livings beyond their means.

You make less and less sense by the day--or, rather, by the post. The payments on a mortgage are necessary to maintain ownership of the home. It is rather like your "wireless bill." The ECF only applies in the unlikely event that for whatever reason you need to prematurely terminate your relationship with your wireless provider. By yourargument, you're saying, "people shouldn't buy a home if they can afford a mortgage, but can't afford the maintenance fees on the offchance that some huge, drastic repairs have to be made to the home early on." I'm actually amazed that someone can twist things around so much, and you never responded to the core of my question, which is basically, if people shouldn't complain about Rogers, what should they do? You're very good at manipulation and that's obvious, but why don't you just take a stab and answer the core question (instead of twisting things around) if you're going to respond at all?

[ceredon]

Always blame the consumer. Nice.

[Eluder]

You make less and less sense by the day--or, rather, by the post. The payments on a mortgage are necessary to maintain ownership of the home. It is rather like your "wireless bill." The ECF only applies in the unlikely event that for whatever reason you need to prematurely terminate your relationship with your wireless provider. By yourargument, you're saying, "people shouldn't buy a home if they can afford a mortgage, but can't afford the maintenance fees on the offchance that some huge, drastic repairs have to be made to the home early on." I'm actually amazed that someone can twist things around so much, and you never responded to the core of my question, which is basically, if people shouldn't complain about Rogers, what should they do? You're very good at manipulation and that's obvious, but why don't you just take a stab and answer the core question (instead of twisting things around) if you're going to respond at all?

I never responded to your core questions because you write too much and I have little patience to read your blurbs. It's simple, if you can't afford the whole price of something, then don't bother getting it. It's like buying a car, or a house, you have to take everything in to account as it's a cost, look at the worst case scenario, and if you can't afford that, then look elsewhere. It's not complex logic, it's quite basic...

Have fun complaining!

[BellVictim]

I never responded to your core questions because you write too much and I have little patience to read your blurbs.

Funny, I tend to see this sort of response in forums from people who are on the losing side of a debate.

Maybe it's just coincidence...

As to the meat of your position: the analogy of house/mortage to cell/ECF - it's a massive fail.

You said: "If you can't afford the ECF, you shouldn't sign up in the first place, that's the way I look at it. Same goes for a mortgage, if you can't afford it, you shouldn't buy the house just because you really really want it."

And that fails because the cell/ECF vs house/mortgage is apples to porcupines ... because ECF ≠ mortgage, the ECF = the sale price of the house, outright. So your attempt at an analogy would, if coherently assembled, lead to the suggestion that people should not buy a house with a mortgage, if they can't afford to buy the house outright.

See the fail?

Keep digging' tho, it's fun to watch...

[some-gei]

some-gei,

I remember you have bashed TELUS and praised Rogers for years regarding "your" kind of network coverage / reliability? So the lesser of the 3 evils?

I'm not really sure what your question is asking, but I think any competent person can see that Robellus are all crooks and collude to push rates up, etc. I would agree that Telus was more disappointing in general, but Rogers is of course "evil" as well.

[DataDude]

Eluder,

I don't get it though. You're the one pointing the finger and doing the blaming (at consumers), and yes, complaining. I'm not complaining here, I just asked a constructive question ("what would be a better thin for consumers to do instead of complain?")

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Eluder school of thought seems to be as follows:
1) Consumers, shut up.
2) Don't buy or sign up for anything unless you can anticipate every single possible cost that could arise. [Not even relevant to the thread really, but...]
3) The only place where it's okay to complain is about other people complaining in a complaint thread.
4) A constructive thing to do when making an argument is to say "I won't answer your question because the post was too long."

I hope you know that this sounds ridiculous, probably even to you, but if that's truly what you believe then I'll shake my head and move on. But if I have your argument wrong somehow, please correct me. It would break down something like this:

- Consumer receives a $47K Rogers bill. Your solution: shut up.
- Student wants to buy a Rogers iPhone and plan. Your solution: don't buy it. He might have to pay the ECF, his phone might break down and he'd have to pay for a new one, his phone might get stolen and roaming charges made, the phone might fall on him and injure him and cause him to have many bills on account of that, it's just safer to not sign up since we don't know what possible costs there may be.
- Rogers buys out an internet company and suddenly consumers are paying the same amount of money for less data. Solution: shut up
- Rogers removes your $10 discount and converts it into a $5 one. Solution: shut up

I mean, I must be missing something here?

[Mr Mystery]

"I won't answer your question because the post was too long."

Lol, you hit them all dead center, but...