Does this qualify to void my contract with Rogers......?

[jcalder]

To each their own, but for the record I'm not the one who called BV a spaz or ceredon an evil spawn. The post you quoted was written by someone else. I just said I had BV and Ceredon blocked because they annoy me.

And for the record, I use Rogers in Manitoba. I know all too well how at one time I was getting 5 meg service and now I'm getting .2 meg service.

I just don't say or do anything about it, since being in the southern part of the province right next to the US border we've been complaining to MTS and Rogers for approximately 10 years about data speed and just general coverage and nothing has happened. Eventually we just gave up since it was a waste of time. MTS's response was "You build the tower and pay for the equipment and we will provide the service."

It was at that point where I cancelled my MTS contract (by paying the ECF) and moved to Rogers. At the time there was no 3G and Edge seemed to work pretty good. In other areas of the province Rogers was lacking but where I spend most of my time it was better so I was pretty happy with Rogers service. I guess that's why I defend them?

Even now with 3G in some areas I turn 3G off and use Edge since it's still better, for voice and texting anyway. We have approximately 1500 acres of land in this "3G and CDMA dead zone". So again Rogers wins. Sure I don't like fees and roaming charges (We get lots of those living 6 miles from the border in a marginal coverage area, for voice and text that is, I keep data roaming turned off but still find my phone on AT&T occasionally) but we got them with MTS and we get them with Rogers.

Maybe I'm just more leniant or I'm just used to these companies ignoring their users and instead of getting frustrated and complaining, I just roll with it.

Either way, with a less sarcastic tone behind it like before, good luck with figuring out your issues and sorry for hijacking your thread.

[ceredon]

One could say the same about your postings in almost every thread telling people to goto court, goto the OOP, goto the CCTS, do this, do that but never do anything yourself.

FYI: You keep using the term "her" when speaking about me. And you are starting to look silly making the same mistake over and over.

When have I ever suggested anyone go to court? The best you can honestly claim is I've said to suggest to Rogers that one is willing to go to court. I've done this myself and they folded very quickly. As for suggesting that or CCTS, of course I'll suggest the routes that I think will be most successful for them. That's just common sense. I should just regurgitate Rogers' crap.

One only looks silly when making untrue or unfounded accusations. That's something I cannot be accused of.

[DataDude]

New laws are coming and the only people it will effect are those who cannot afford $600 phones because the providers are just going to stop offering phone rebates on contracts since people will just get out of the contract whenever they feel like it.

Well, I assume you're joking because that's never going to happen: it's not as though Rogers has hundreds of unpaid subsidies cutting into its profit margin.

But I do have to ask you something, and I hope you'll think about it even if you don't respond.

Why don't you, as someone who I am led to believe works for Rogers, suggest to them that they actually reward loyalty instead of punishing it?

Most businesses give returning customers an extra perk or two, and recognize the customers' loyalty by providing them with some kind of added value.

Rogers seems to do exactly the opposite. Once they've given you a locked phone (so you're stuck using it on their network) and also locked you into a contract, then they do whatever they please as long as they can justify it legally. Long distance increase: not part of the contract (says them), so let's do it. Ditto for international texting fees, value packs, 911 fees, calling area reductions.

You can argue that these aren't part of your base plan. But you can't possibly argue that they're beneficial to customers. They suck. And they're totally abstract since if anything costs to provide the service are going down, not up.

Maybe you're hitting on something which happens to not be a part of the plain-Jane base contract, but you're still punishing a loyal client who potentially uses that feature and relies upon it. Of course he's going to want to leave.

I mean, if you're really worried about those shares (I wouldn't worry just yet) why not encourage Rogers to actually make customers happy instead of punishing them for long-term patronage?

[RogersUser1]

I have often wondered the same thing. It's as if Rogers is actively working to drive customers away and ensure they do not deal with them in the future. They have become the standard type of visionless corporation who will go for $1 today rather than $10 tomorrow. Probably because companies of that size are run by executives who drop in for a few years, do anything for the shortest-possible term profits and their own bonuses, then take off and don't look back while the long-term consequences of their behavior sap the company of its future potential.

[RogersUser1]

And for the record, I use Rogers in Manitoba. I know all too well how at one time I was getting 5 meg service and now I'm getting .2 meg service.

I just don't say or do anything about it, since being in the southern part of the province right next to the US border we've been complaining to MTS and Rogers for approximately 10 years about data speed and just general coverage and nothing has happened. Eventually we just gave up since it was a waste of time. MTS's response was "You build the tower and pay for the equipment and we will provide the service."

I can understand that. Being rural will always mean more problems with connections, reception and speeds. But I live right in the middle of Winnipeg and am having those kind of speed issues. There is a different set of expectations. In a big city, the connections should be good, at least functional.