Comments on: Rogers: No SMS text message plan? No free incoming SMS for you!

By: Jagga

Jagga — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:48:46 +0000

Rogers is the worst provider, I have to call repeatedly to fix my bill. They trap their customers in loop holes, MAKE YOUR DAMN PRODUCTS AND PLANS SIMPLE. ALL THESE GOD DAMN LOOP HOLES TO GET YOU STUCK INTO PAYING EXTRA FEES. Call display for $3 to 8$… Can’t MMS on iphone without a data plan? OR best of all hey so i bought an iphone without a data plan and cant afford the data plan .. fair enough so i wont use Safari or internet at all. BUT HEY CUSTOMER F*** Y*** we’re going to charge you for data usage anyway! Alright rogers Suck on my D*** i’ll get a data block – oh well now you cant use MMS without buying a data plan. AND NOW YOURE CHARGING FOR INCOMING TEXTS? YOUR COMPANY IS NOTHING BUT B/S GREEDY BAST*RDS MOTHERLESS MOTHERF**KING C*NTS FU*K YOU ALL TO HE*L

By: ASHA

ASHA — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:46:45 +0000

I AM JOINING IN FREE INCOMING SMS ANY GOOD GROUPS
MY NO.-9714698754

By: Lina

Lina — Sun, 17 May 2009 03:29:39 +0000

I LOVE YOU FOR SAYING THIS…..THANK YOU!!!!!!!
I HATE ROGERSSSSSSSSS WITH A PASSION I HOPE YOU GO BANKRUPT.

By: Filip

Filip — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:25:49 +0000

God, I hate Rogers. Wireless, landline, tv and internet services in Canada are all run by basically the same two companies – Bell and Rogers. What is it going to take to break these companies up. There is obviously no competition going on when they can raise fees at their whim. Considering Canadian taxpayers subsidized the construction of the infrastructure, we deserve a lot more than this. Too bad the beaurocrats in charge are such cowards, and Canadians are so complacent.

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:57:03 +0000

“charging for incoming texts has become common practice among major carriers” – the sheep analogy is never a good place to put your company. It doesn’t justify anything. You should be the first (killer app deployment) or at least with the pack (for something like this where consumers aren’t exactly loving the company for it).

An aside: I don’t like that various cellular companies still have ‘voice’, ‘texting’, ‘email’, ‘data’, and ‘web’ subpart plans these days – just move over to per packet charges and make things much clearer for consumers. Let us use the packets as we see fit!

By: Keith McArthur

Keith McArthur — Thu, 07 May 2009 14:36:06 +0000

Hey John and Tim – thanks for the feedback. Rogers is constantly reviewing our business and adjusting to reflect usage and trends. Text messaging in Canada doubled from 2007 to 2008 according to the CWTA. And charging for incoming texts has become common practice among major carriers across North America. Rogers Wireless customers do have an opportunity to sign up for text messaging plans (including the $5 plan), which offer unlimited incoming text.

By: Tim Melgin

Tim Melgin — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:41:40 +0000

Well, Keith McArthur of the communications group at Rogers, I have a few questions for you: First of all, do you remember when Bell and Telus introduced the fee and Rogers used this time to say how superior it was for standing by its customers and how bad it was of the other two to gouge their customers? What happened to this line of reasoning? Why are you introducing a fee for a service that costs you absolutely nothing to run because of the way its implemented in the GSM standard? If 94 percent (it’s one word) of texts are sent/received with a plan, why is the charge necessary at all? Why does your company insist on making a profit by inflating the prices of its existing services, rather than offering innovative services that people WANT to buy?

Another example of this is that when I first got a cellphone, caller ID cost $3/mo. It’s now $7/mo, but between then and now inflation hasn’t more than doubled. Furthermore, the increase of wireless customers since then and now should have driven the price DOWN. The fact is Rogers can only charge what it does because there is no GSM competition in Canada. I’ll be a proud ex-Rogers customer as soon as the new GSM startups start offering service. Consumers aren’t idiots, but you treat us like we are. I wish bad things upon your company.

By: john

john — Wed, 06 May 2009 14:50:04 +0000

But wait – “94 per cent of texts are sent/received within a plan”. Since those with texting plans probably send/receive more SMS messages than those without a plan, that means the percentage of customers without a text plan is (a lot) higher than 6%.

What percentage of your CUSTOMERS will be paying for incoming text messages, Mr. Keith McArthur?

By: john

john — Wed, 06 May 2009 14:41:43 +0000

So “sticking it” to only 6% of customers is somehow OK?

By: Keith McArthur

Keith McArthur — Tue, 05 May 2009 22:34:35 +0000

I’m with the communications group at Rogers. As the article correctly points out, this fee will only apply to customers not on a text messaging plan. This means only a very small percentage texts will be affected since 94 per cent of texts are sent/received within a plan.

For clarification, the fee comes into effect on July 7. And as Dan the Man points out, this isn’t new in the Canadian telecom industry. Other carriers have been charging for incoming texts for a year.

By: Dan The Man

Dan The Man — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:21:00 +0000

Bell and Telus already changed this policy last year.

By: jacobi

jacobi — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:13:30 +0000

Telus started charging for incoming text messages a while back so I was kind of expecting Rogers to do the same.