You do not have the info that is why your " claim" is not valid. I have been waiting for that so called link u claimed to have but u never provided it. Then you said u " contacted" your " source" . It seems you do not have anything to back your self up & just coming on here to start a fight or argument which is not needed. I provided the CRTC site which does not state it anywhere.
So really your post with the claim is just false & not valid as you have nothing to prove that your claim is real. In the end the CRTC controls the rules, not the carriers. The carriers can twist or find a loophole but the CRTC will see it.
If you wish to make this claim, i suggest emailing the CRTC & the Federal Government to be heard.
When you return, please provide next time a source of your " Claim" instead of nothing & starting a argument which is not needed. Also i suggest next time you come here, do NOT start something & do not say or assume someone works for Rogers.
Now lets stay on topic please. This thread is about the Nexus 5 being $50 more, not about a rule.
Even then, I provided a link posting the CRTC rules in which does not state anything the user is claiming. I provided the proper link in which the user never provided anything.
hellinutopia claimed to have a link showing the claim. Never posted it. Then they claimed to be contacting their source. I search all about this & no where do i see anything about this.
In the end yes this is a open forum but for someone like this user to come in, claim something that is false & then start a argument , then is not what a forum is about.
NOW if you have something to post about the thread & the OP, lets hear it.
If you Hogwash & hellinutopia want to say more towards me, there is a PM button on my profile, use it & we can discuss this more there.
Here is the information. So its not CRTC regulation just yet Im a little ahead of the game but its incomming and thier is nothing lobbying groups can do to stop it. BTW Meowmix are you part of a lobbying group or do you hold stock in Rogers. Not false but incomming. So do you now think formal publication dont fact check before publishing stories. Only the next 6 months will tell who is correct here. Things are a changing, smell the fresh air and love life. Its about time the Canadian people forced resonability. I have never been more proud to be a Canadian. Meowmix are you Canadian.
Dec or by spring.
Umm please provide something useless which will back up your statement. The links you provided, show the same thing i posted with the link of the CRTC. Please visit the CRTC link & your links to see the same,..
"Some of the provisions mirror the national telecommunication regulator’s code of conduct, which takes effect in December."
Your links =
Provisions of Ontario legislation governing wireless contracts:
CRTC link = http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/t14.htm
Both links you provided, say the same exact thing that the CRTC put in affect just 3 days ago.
No you did not. If you really claimed all that, you would have seen my CRTC links & not be arguing about this correct?
No where does your statement " I have been told and this may or may not be true, that there are new regulations where a company cannot charge you for a value that they have made up but can charge you for fair market value depreciation on the phone at the time of closing your contract (this is in the instance where you close your account early/before end of formal contract. I will find the information and post the link here when I do."
Show that on the CRTC main page which i posted. Please remove it here. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/t14.htm
Here is another link providing my back up. http://mobilesyrup.com/2013/12/02/crtcs-wireless-code-of-conduct-comes-into-effect-today/
All i see is this
"Device subsidy The difference between (i) the lesser of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price of a device or the price set for the device when it is purchased from the service provider without a contract; and (ii) the amount a customer paid for the device when they agreed to the contract."
So the argument is symantics, the point still remains.
So what your saying with your argument is Rogers can tell you the devise is woth $100,000.00 dollars and the plan is covering your costs for that phone and at the end of two years your free and clear. If you want out of your plan in one year the cost to get out would be $50,000.00 if the subsidy was equal. Your saying that its fair business practice to charge this and not the fair market depreciated value of the product. Whether its in the CRTC guidlines now or in the future the point has been sidetracked
Its terrible business practice to do these things and is deplorable.
Im done BTW. As long as the thread remains what I have said is enough.
I never once said its fair. If you read all my posts, i never said its fair. I said if you have something to back up your claim, post is. Again please read the posts before assuming. You do not see it outside the box tho. Bell, Telus, Fido, Virgin & others that do this, have the same policy in place. All carriers do this, not just Rogers here.Yes the point has been sidetracked but as a customer you are, you can contact the CRTC & the Federal Government & you can inform them about this. I am sure you can do that..
If you can provide the link you said you had, i would love to see it. The links your provided show the same thing the CRTC pushed out on December 2nd.
We can let this die & wait until you or the CRTC shows this or we can sit here & argue about this. I say let it go & wait.