Goodbye GRRF

[wolfpacal]

I just thought ANY change to the base plan without my consent would constitute grounds for early termination without penalty. I don't care if they're reducing the GRRF or renaming it and increasing my base plan, I think someone should push this either with OoP or CTTS. It would be nice to get away from Rogers. I hate this creep Nadir who's running the show now. Any members here willing to test the waters with this strategy? I may call them this afternoon and see what happens.

[ceredon]

^We know that won't happen...

We do indeed. Just the wording doesn't really fit.

But the total would not be increasing. Instead of paying $30 + $2.13 you'd pay $32.00 For most it would go slightly down if this is being done across the board.

True enough. But it was Rogers own doing to position the GRRF/SAF/whatever as a separate fee, over and above your plan price. If and when they raise your plan rate, that is a negative, even if they then balance it by removing the SAF.

When you buy a car, you pay the retail price plus whatever extra fees they charge. They might get rid of those fees, but if they raise the retail price as a result, that is still a retail price increase.

[ceredon]

I just thought ANY change to the base plan without my consent would constitute grounds for early termination without penalty. I don't care if they're reducing the GRRF or renaming it and increasing my base plan, I think someone should push this either with OoP or CTTS. It would be nice to get away from Rogers. I hate this creep Nadir who's running the show now. Any members here willing to test the waters with this strategy? I may call them this afternoon and see what happens.

I think the consensus is that they will not touch your existing pricing. If they do, give them a call.

[Joey_G_1975]

According to the following link, this only applies to “new activations and existing customers migrating to an in-market plan will be affected by this change. Existing customers will be grandfathered; their invoice will remain the same."

http://mobilesyrup.com/2012/07/04/ro...y-service-fee/

[theplayground]

Amazing how Rogers has been free to charge SAF, and then get rid of it....but guess what they introduced GRRF and increased their plans by $5......so really they ended ripping customers more than what they were bringing in with $6.95. With this change they started banking in more that what SAF was bringing in. Just another way to tell the law makers in this country...shove it up.

Now, they will change the GRRF to whateva, whateva, whateva, whateva, whateva, and there she goes again. This is becoming ridiculous everytime I think about how great this county is, as we keep paying and paying....until every citizen will run into debt..........because the government wipes their behind using our money knowing full well that this is a charge that shud have never been.

Did we pay taxes on $6.95.............or the GRRF, or will we on whateva the next is...............
This is ridiculous in such a rich country like ours. Are we seriously this stupid.

[Scotch-guy]

Are we seriously this stupid.

Only Robbers customers

[migo]

You mean victims, not customers.

[theplayground]

Only Robbers customers

I think u seem to be missing the point. Ur beloved Bell used to charge over $8 in SAF. I wonder if u remember that. This cannibalism is all across the board not only at Rogers.

This just keeps getting more and more ridiculous....

[mech9t5]

isn't that what they are doing?

I'm going to assume you didn't read what you quoted yourself. so I'm gonna quote it here.

Effective July 4th, 2012, the Government Regulatory Recovery Fee will be renamed to the Government Regulatory Cost.

[ceredon]

I'm going to assume you didn't read what you quoted yourself. so I'm gonna quote it here.

Allow me to provide another part of that quote, again.

Customers will no longer see a separate line on their bill for the Government Regulatory Recovery Fee. The Government Regulatory Cost will now be included in the Monthly Service Fee of in market price plans. Customers will see an increase of $2-$3 to their Monthly Service Fee amount.

You said "i don't understand why they don't just raise the price and include it like Bell/Telus did."
Which is exactly what they are doing. "Customers will see an increase of $2-$3 to their Monthly Service Fee amount."

The portion you quoted relates to existing plans for existing customers. They aren't going to raise those because it would allow customers to cancel, and the fee will still be a separate line item and will have a new name. But for all new customers and all plans going forward, the prices have been raised, exactly as you were wondering.

[mech9t5]

The portion you quoted relates to existing plans for existing customers.

So you agree that I am correct [for existing customers]. Which is why I asked... What's the point of renaming it [for existing customers]? Why not just increase the price of plans and drop the fee [for existing customers]?

Migrate everyone over. Are they worried about people claiming breach of contract? If customers are still paying the same price (no impact to customer), there is no material breach and no grounds for customers to terminate with no ECF. Besides, Rogers is not averse to unilaterally changing contracts that DO have material effect to customers (LCAs, increase 911, etc.)

With the class action suit going on with SAF, would all the grandfathered plans be part of that class? Before I cancelled Rogers in Feb, I was still on a plan that had SAF as a line item. I have another Rogers line that still also has SAF as a line item.

You'd think they want to limit their exposure to this class action.

[ceredon]

So you agree that I am correct [for existing customers]. Which is why I asked... What's the point of renaming it [for existing customers]? Why not just increase the price of plans and drop the fee [for existing customers]?

Migrate everyone over. Are they worried about people claiming breach of contract? If customers are still paying the same price (no impact to customer), there is no material breach and no grounds for customers to terminate with no ECF. Besides, Rogers is not averse to unilaterally changing contracts that DO have material effect to customers (LCAs, increase 911, etc.)

With the class action suit going on with SAF, would all the grandfathered plans be part of that class? Before I cancelled Rogers in Feb, I was still on a plan that had SAF as a line item. I have another Rogers line that still also has SAF as a line item.

yes, I agree with you. For new customers and anyone that makes changes to their plan, they are doing exactly as you suggest. For existing customer they are not. I am guessing that claims of breech are exactly why they are not making the change across the board for existing customer.

1) since the amount customers pay for the GRRF differs, then a single blanket fee change would result in a change for some customers.
2) Even if they customized the fee changes for everyone so that their total bill is the same as before, they would still face customers claiming breech (rightly or wrongly) since their plan price itself went up. The contracts customers signed agreed to specific plan prices, regardless of additional fees that may or may not change to compensate.

As for the class action lawsuit, no reason to think you would not be included. The lawsuit was filed in 2006 and claims fees paid back to 1988. From Merchant's info page (sparse) it seems they are claiming on behalf of all customers that paid the SAF, though some news outlets imply it is for customers that were misled to believe it was a government fee. Not sure if it also covers fees paid since the 2006 filing nor if it also includes functionally equivalent fees like the GRRF.

[mech9t5]

yes, I agree with you. For new customers and anyone that makes changes to their plan, they are doing exactly as you suggest. For existing customer they are not. I am guessing that claims of breech are exactly why they are not making the change across the board for existing customer.

1) since the amount customers pay for the GRRF differs, then a single blanket fee change would result in a change for some customers.
2) Even if they customized the fee changes for everyone so that their total bill is the same as before, they would still face customers claiming breech (rightly or wrongly) since their plan price itself went up. The contracts customers signed agreed to specific plan prices, regardless of additional fees that may or may not change to compensate.

As for the class action lawsuit, no reason to think you would not be included. The lawsuit was filed in 2006 and claims fees paid back to 1988. From Merchant's info page (sparse) it seems they are claiming on behalf of all customers that paid the SAF, though some news outlets imply it is for customers that were misled to believe it was a government fee. Not sure if it also covers fees paid since the 2006 filing nor if it also includes functionally equivalent fees like the GRRF.

2) If the total bill is the same customers can still complain, of course. But as I said, Rogers has made changes before that are increases in price (911 fee increase) and they don't seem to care. Also, the service agreement does not specifically protect the price of the plan.

RE: Class action suit, my questions was more rhetorical.

[ceredon]

2) If the total bill is the same customers can still complain, of course. But as I said, Rogers has made changes before that are increases in price (911 fee increase) and they don't seem to care. Also, the service agreement does not specifically protect the price of the plan.

RE: Class action suit, my questions was more rhetorical.

They might likely win with any CCTS claims of breech, but it would drive up their CCTS complaint metrics and would cost them time and effort to deal with.

I didn't catch that your question was rhetorical. When facing an $18 billion lawsuit, the added exposure of the customers still paying SAF is probably relatively trivial overall, win or lose.

[Scotch-guy]

I think u seem to be missing the point. Ur beloved Bell used to charge over $8 in SAF. I wonder if u remember that. This cannibalism is all across the board not only at Rogers.

This just keeps getting more and more ridiculous....

I was kidding.....they are all crooks IMO!