Article Comments

How a terror group cloned Ted Rogers' cellphone

By PETER CHENEY , The Globe and Mail,  Saturday, December 17, 2005

Readers comments

  1. David Molzahn from Toronto, Ont, Canada writes: Shameful, Mr. Ted Rogers...Simply shameful...  
    Do you know how many Canadians would be financially defastated if Banks did the same thing due to identity theft losses?  
    Be real - the customer didn't make the calls....Tear up the bill.
    • Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 3:58 AM EST

  2. István P from Thornhill, Canada writes:
  1. HUCK FINN from Dallas, United States writes:
  1. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes:
  1. A L from Milton, ON, Canada writes:
  1. Roy Jones from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Roy Jones from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. daniel b from milton, Canada writes: This is the tip of the iceberg as far as false charges go, just ask aol 
    customers - kudos to these two enterprising citizens for exposing such 
    blatant corporate malfeasance.It would be a crime if rogers made 
    a penny on this nonesense - be careful folks, it's getting rough out 
    there, high water everywhere!
  1. Andrew Jardine from Burlington, ON, Canada writes: This is good news for the consumer. Given that Ms. Drummond is a law professor I imagine she has a good chance of winning the case and thus exposingone more dishonest practice used by large communications companies to defraud their customers. If she were a bus driver or a filing clerk I doubt she'd have the knowledge to conduct the case against Rogers or the means to hire legal help, even though it is a small claims case. I sincerely hope she wins and her action opens a massive enquiry into the conduct and practises of all cell phone companies in Canada - charlatans, the lot of them, preying on the ignorance of the public and hiding behind contracts which I bet even lawyers have difficulty comprehending. Incidentally, I don't own a cell phone.
  1. The Skipper from Edmonton, Canada writes:
  1. Mark Irvine from Canada writes: r> 
    Is there any business with a worse reputation in Canada than cell carriers?The absolute arrogance of these businesses astounds me.Good on the Globe for bringing to light in the hopes that many of the others that have suffered from this become aware they can take action.
  1. Jim Isaway from Toronto, Canada writes: As a customer who has had difficult dealings with Rogers, I can fully empathise with Ms. Drummond. They are not the most pleasant company to deal with. It seems rather irresponsible if not downright foolish for them to continue to agressively deal with Ms. Drummond in this way. They have obviously chosen the wrong person to deal with. The amount of public relations damage done to Rogers is far more than the $12,237.60 it would take to settle this. I suspect that some Rogers PR person will be making the anoucement soon that they have happily settled the case with Ms. Drummond.
  1. Lois Richer from Windsor, Canada writes: I think this story is very interesting, not only from the point of view taken by the article.But also for the lack of follow-up to the link to terrorism.Is it then conceivable that Rogers (or other wireless telecommunications companies) could be aiding the United States governemnt's monitoring of terrorist activities through the use of its executives' as well as private customers' phones.and abbetting this terrorist activity, deliberately or otherwise?
  1. J G from Canada writes: YOU GO GIRL!!
  1. jason Vandal from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Don't worry Roger's, I will make sure that I will tell everyone I know about this article.Another giant company out to prove that customer's who actually got them to where there are now are truly unimportant.
  1. George Gianos from Canada writes: Good for her! Cell phone companies have been screwing consumers for too long. Time to take charge!
  1. Richard Pearson from Ottawa, Canada writes:
  1. Howard Libman from Montreal, Canada writes: Makes you wonder ! Who is more fraudulent. The terrorists and criminals who commandeered Ms.Drummond's phone or Management at Rogers who deny any responsability whatsoever.
  1. john emrys from toronto, writes: I had a similar experience years ago with Rogers Wireless, whereby they attempted to squelch me out of 940.00 over a 38.00 [paid] bill. While the judge at Small Claims took only a couple of seconds to reject their "contractual" defense, it left me with a bad taste for Rogers Wireless "service." Ms. Drummond is right. She shouldn't have to pay for thef. Roger's settlement offer invites a pubic statement of disclosure (or apology at the very least) by the company to salvage the confidence levels of their client base. Lets' hope the Globe follows up on Ms. Drummond's story.
  1. Alexander Dryden from Ottawa, Canada writes:
  1. freda stewart from calgary, AB, Canada writes: Good to know which company to avoid when or if I ever decide to get a cellphone. The excuse of being unable to contact is a crock. Call the cellphone number, ask the question. I see a cellphone as a convenient way of staying in contact when travelling.Most of us would appreciate knowing Rogers security was doing its job. Went through a similar situation with Telus a few years ago over 900 calls. They had several good excuses why they could/would not block 900 numbers. It didn't work and hopefully Ms Drummond makes Rogers see the light of their own arrogance and carelessness.
  1. kevin rose from Canada writes:


  1. Allan Simon from Calgary, Canada writes: I want to tahnk and congratulate Ms Drummond and Mr Gefen for their resolve and igneuity. What can I do to help?
  1. b mac from greater vancouver, Canada writes: Come on you guys. Don't be to hard on poor old Ted's Rogers with Christmas and all coming just around the corner. He has a lot of presents to buy, has a lot of Christmas cards to send out and still has to try and get his income tax filed by April.
  1. Stephen Larin from Kingston, Canada writes: This article provides no evidence that 'terrorists' are responsible for the fraudulent calls, other than the repetition of a claim made by a Rogers employee.Shouldn't we expect a higher standard of journalism from the Globe & Mail?
  1. Alain Mulaire from ottawa, writes: Ms. Drummond and Mr. Gefen, please send me your address. A good bottle of wine is on the way! 
    Congrats, and thank you for your tireless work against these theives. Last year, Rogers lost my entire business (cell, internet, cable) due to a similar shinanigan. They are an evil company, that doesn't deserve to exist.
  1. David Howell from Salt Spring Is., Canada writes:
  1. Brent Toole from Ottawa, Canada writes:
  1. Mike Ethan from Toronto, Canada writes: I will never NEVER switch to Rogers Wireless. 
        Never.  The fun part of looking at the mindset of these brain-dead corporations, is that out of their scheme to try and extort $12,000 out of a poor single customer, the end result will be losing MILLION$ in potential in potential revenue from people who will never switch to Rogers Wireless after reading this story.  Not to mention the thousands on legal fees and PR costs they are going to have to spend to try and make this all go away.  Congratulations to Ms. Drummond and her partner.  You are true patriots to Canadian freedom and fighters of big brother corporate fascism.
  1. John-Ward Leighton from Vancouver, Canada writes: This is why I have a pay as you go system, if my phone is stolen or cloned it can only be stuck for the amount of the prepaid card. i worked for many years in the armed forces signals security and know there is no such thing as a secure system. Buyer Beware. 
  1. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes:
  1. Eugene Sendelweck from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Marc M from Calgary, Canada writes:
  1. Alex Salvador from Vancouver, Canada writes: Just incredibly unbelievable! I'm forwarding this story to all my friends. I've thought about switching from Telus to Rogers but I'm definitely not switching anytime soon.
  1. Rob dueck from London Ontario, Canada writes:
  1. Sandie H from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Terry Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada writes:
  1. D B R from somewhere, Canada writes:
  1. JonQ Public from Victorola, United States writes: Rogers MegaCorp has obviously met its match. Now that the Mop and Pail have made this consumer intimidation saga front page news, I'm sure in retrospect, the Rogers PR department would have wished to have settled this matter, quietly and in a targetted fashion (don't take on Osgood hall lawyers, settle amicably but continue to intimidate those with less knowledge of the law). However, this law professor did sign a contract which no doubt set out her responsibilities clearly. I wonder if a duty to care trumps black letter contract requirements. The credit card biz would never survive if it charged all items on a stolen card up until the user reports a theft. On a security basis, cellphones should look at public encryption standards so that all conversations are validated by the user and immune to snooping. Where's the CRTC in injecting some fairness in the process. Government regulation is key here to stop predatory practices on public airwaves. Really interesting issues.
  1. Neil W. Humphrey from Vancouver, Canada writes:
  1. Ryan Peatt from Victoria, Canada writes:
  1. Hershl Berman from Ontario, Canada writes:
  1. T A from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I notice a story about Rogers, and I notice everyone is ganging up on Rogers. 
    Who said Telus doesn't do this? [no one].Who said MTS doesn't do this? [no one] 
    et cetera. 
    My fellow Canadians, please get it straight: It's not Rogers. It's the government (lack of oversight and legislation) and the telecommunication industry (lack of ethics, or even any pretence of them). Blaming Rogers, as sensible as it may seem, is not sensible because it won't bring much change. It'll bring temporary relief, in the form of a warm, fuzzy "We showed THEM" feeling, while you and I deserve more. Like an improvement, for instance. 
    A boycott is not a bad idea, of course, but it isn't enough because it lets the government (and Telus and MTS!) off the hook.
  1. maryetta thielen from Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada writes:
  1. Alfredo Lapasaran from Toronto, Canada writes: what a great story!!!! Ms. Drummond should no give up the fight. she 
    represents consumers of ted rogers corporation (how i hate it then ted 
    bought fido).... to globe and mail.. keep the story alive!
  1. boo bear from saint john, Canada writes: hey had cell phone service a few years back with rogers. never again terrible company to deal with. if i had to go back with rogers i would use smoke signals first. never never again. i amazed they stay in business.
  1. Baljit Johal from Canada writes:
  1. jo ts from Victoria, Canada writes: Typical arrogant attitude of Rogers! I remember when Rogers took over Fido they insisted on keeping Fido separate and distinct in terms of plans and services in all their public annoucements. Well, a few years later, Fido no longer exists as a distinct entity. Rogers gutted all that is good about Fido. Rogers and Fido are the same. This bald face lie to the general public follows Rogers distinct tradition of shafting the public. Another excellent example of this attitude is the negative billing Rogers employed with their cable services a few years ago; this was where Rogers charged you for services you did not want and you had to call them to get it off the billing. Rogers gives me the willies. As a small business owner, I had also the unfortunate experience of dealing with their corporate entity as a vendor of services. Their managers were arrogant and shafted us out of paying for work we performed upon their written request. Rogers is just a bad apple right to their rotten core. The core starts from the top. Rogers has no soul. May forever they are codemned to a special place in hell!
  1. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes:
  1. jay bechtloff from Vienna, Austria writes: Well, this article really goes in 2 different directions.First 
    it mentions the cloning and then says her phone was stolen.If 
    her phone was cloned and not stolen, then she shouldn't have to pay the 
    charges, but how can you prove this (Except for the unbelievably high 
    charges).If she lost her phone, than it's her fault and it's 
    just like the credit card example provided earlier.
  1. Roy Jones from Toronto, Canada writes: No one could even mention to Ted that Terrosists were using his cell...this says something about Ted
  1. Roy Jones from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Paul Gross from Ottawa, Canada writes:
  1. Noneof Yourbusiness from Canada writes: To DBR #38 
    Read the story:  
    Ms. Drummond quickly determined what had happened: Someone had stolen her phone while she was away. 
    How could she have notified them when it was stolen if she was away and did not know until she returned. At which time she did notify them.
  1. Roy Jones from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. dave stewart from Calgary, Canada writes: Rogers - Get some smarts and reverse the bill - it makes you look like idiots - ever hear of Conrad Black.....
  1. r peach from Calgary, Canada writes: I have decided to buy a cell phone after all these years and have been comparing all the carriers.....after reading this article I certainly will NOT be using Rogers.This bad PR is already costing them money
  1. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes:
  1. Jim Terrets from Vancouver, Canada writes: Given that Ted Rogers and the entire management team at Rogers 
    (including his head of security) are aiding and abetting international 
    terrorism, they should immediately be rounded up by Canadian 
    authorities and sent to the airport, where a CIA rendition flight will 
    take them to a secret Eastern European prison for 
    "interrogation".A the least, I would expect that if Canada is 
    serious about fighting terrorism, that Ted Rogers and his executives 
    face treason charges, since our young men and women are dying in 
    Afghanistan fighting the very terrorists that Rogers helps.
  1. s e from Kelowna, Canada writes:
  1. Ian Anderson from Calgary, Canada writes:
  1. Bruce Banner from Toronto , Canada writes:
  1. Mark Janveaux from Victoria, BC, Canada writes: I too have had my fair share of Rogers unfair and unethical billing 
    practices.After reading the above stories and talking with 
    numerous friends and acquaintances, I know I am not alone.  
    Unfortunately due to the fact that Rogers is now the ONLY GSM based 
    mobile provider in Canada, people that require GSM mobile coverage have 
    no choice but to sign up with Rogers.  
    I understand that from the article the premise of the plaintiffs 
    argument is that Rogers could have prevented further fraud from 
    occuring once they detected it using their automated security 
    systems.I have been complaining to Rogers for TWO YEARS about 
    the inability to report against my Rogers account for my current 
    billing period.  
    I get regular ridiculously high phone bills (each month 1000-1500.00, 
    no exceptions) and have been on every plan Rogers offers trying to find 
    something that meets my usage.I have resigned to signing up to 
    their most expensive, closest matching plan in order to try and cut my 
    costs.My problem is, Rogers does not allow me to either call in 
    to their customer service department or find out over the web, what I 
    am currently OWING for my current billing period, or even how many 
    minutes I have used up.I don't find that out until the end of 
    the month, after they have billed me for it.  
    It seems to be like this could be part of a solution to fraud 
    prevention, allowing the customer to pro-actively monitor their own 
    usage.This is scary for Rgers as I understand why they don't 
    want to give the consumer this ability, but customers are getting 
    screwed every month.In fact, one of the major cab companies here 
    in Victoria have a fleet account with Rogers and I know for a fact 
    they've been unhappy with Rogers billing practices for years, but have 
    no choice but to be with Rogers.  
    When is enough enough?!
  1. David Neimberg from Canada writes: I agree with Jay Bechtloff's comments.IF her phone was stolen (not cloned), she should've reported it immdediately, not just waiting for over a month to realize that.I mean, if it's stolen, not cloned, how can't you not realize that you're missing your cellphone?What were you doing?Partying whole this time?
  1. Daniel Saucier from ottawa, Canada writes:
  1. Michael Szepvolgyi from Canada writes: Someone above wrote that someone at Rogers had told them a "Bald face lie". At the risk of pedantism I'd like to clarify that the expression is "bold-faced lie". It suggests a person telling a lie who is completely bold, their face utterly innocent-looking as they proceed with deception. This "bald face" business creeps up rather often andmust be laid to rest. Why would a "bald faced" lie be worse than a bearded one? Especially for a woman? If only Rogers was as scrupulous in correcting our grammar as they are with collecting their (undue) fees all be better off.
  1. Brent Toole from ottawa, Canada writes: TO RP:You are right.So to be a little more clear in my comment, this whole article seems a little suspect.Please bear in mind who the majority owner of the G&M is and who that majority owner's main competitor is.Maybe I'm too cynical, but I see an ulterior motive here.
  1. D B R from somewhere, Canada writes:
  1. Harry Taylor from Cambridge, Canada writes:
  1. John Hallows from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Duff Shot from Canada writes: The article says Ms. Drummond teaches at Osgoode, not Ottawa.
  1. C OBrien from Canada writes: To  
    Daniel Saucier: 
    You obviously didn't read the article as it explicitly states that her phone was not 'Stolen' but 'Cloned'.You have no idea that your phone has been cloned until you get the bill for all the phone calles you DID NOT make. 
    The simplest thing for BOTH parties would be to simple check the internal log for the phone and compare it to the number of minutes she was billed.Most phones store the total number of calls and total minutes used that can't be modified by the user. 
    It really is amazing how simple it is to clone a phone once you have the necessary equipment!
  1. Afti Mous from Toronto, Canada writes: What a load of bull this story is.Why the heck would she wait as long as she did to report her phone stolen?Remember her phone was not cloned but physically stolen according to the story.How can a professor of law with "a sterling credit rating" be so irresponsible as to neglect to report her phone stolen? As far as I am concerned she should pay all of it. If your car gets stolen and you report it 3 weeks later, do you think the insurance company would rebate you 3 weeks insurance? Not a chance!Why should they? If someone broke into your house, stayed 3 weeks and made 100 calls a day to lets say....Uzbekistan should you be on the hook for those charges?Of course you would.Do you think Bell would write those charges off? No they would not. Having a cell phone is a responsibility. Like anything else valuable ( a wallet, PIN number or credit card)steps should be taken to ensure it does not fall into the wrong hands.Every 14 year old with a cell phone knows this and I would expect an Osgoode Hall professor of Law to have the common sense to safe guard her valuables.
  1. Joel B from Vancouver, Canada writes:
  1. Brad Richert from edmonton, Canada writes: There is no difference between Bell, Telus, Rogers, or Virgin. They all 
    use nice fine print to reel you in. I use to work for the company in 
    question and I know how useless and arrogant they are. Once my plan is 
    done, I will not be switching to any cell phone carrier. The "need" of 
    a cellphone, not matter how much, is a manufactured need.
  1. John Hallows from Toronto, Canada writes: As I explained before they were two different topics in the same article. 
    "For its part, Rogers says it will correct the situation. "It is clear from a thorough review that in Ms. Drummond's case mistakes were made," said Rogers spokesperson Jan Innes. "We are making every effort to contact her to resolve this situation." Rogers admits its top executives were victims of a security breach, but that was back in 1997, when they used analogue phones." 
    So basically it was bad customer service and Susan Drummond got what she wanted, media attention.
  1. Jonathan Butt from Cranbrook BC, Canada writes: This is not just a simple case of a cell phone being lost or stolen. Remember that the plaintiff was away in Israel fro a month when the calls were made and her phone was home.  
    If someone cloned her phone the only way she would know was when the bill arrived. It is inconcievable that she could be held responsible for charges when she didn't even know her phone had been "hijacked" (you can't hit what you can't see) however Rogers obviously could see what was happening and did nothing. Shame on them! 
    I have been called by my credit card company when online purchases have been made and many retailers of easily resellable items (digital cameras etc...) have to get the customer to call VISA if they are making a purchase. Especially if the store is out of the person's home area. 
    Rogers is definitely in the wrong and should pay the bill, all costs and something for damages and time spent researching the case by the plaintiff and her husband.
  1. Nischal Rajasuba from Ajax, Canada writes: IF Rogers claims that no one can clone their phone they are lying on our face to protect their reputation.  
    There are individuals who CAN clone the phone but they would rather clone the Credit cards, debit cards and bonds.
  1. Pierre Pepin from Montreal, Canada writes: One simple way to solve this problem is to have a system similar to the 
    one they use in China. The customer buys a cellphopne, and a SIM card 
    from a company of his/her choice. Then You can "load" an amount of 
    money into your phone account. When the money runs out, it is not 
    possible to make calls or send text messages. This "pay-as-you-go" 
    system is simple, loading cards are available everywhere in different 
    amounts, and surely less costly to run than having to produce monthly 
    phone bills, some of which, as this story shows, can yield unpleasant 
  1. R M from Regina, Canada writes: Was her phone physically stolen? if it was, I can  
    understand rogers' position.but if it was cloned,  
    then that's a security flaw and there's no way  
    somone should have to pay for that--just like  
    credit card fraud.
  1. Roy Jones from Toronto, Canada writes: its sad when an executive is such a jerk that his own people cant approach him about the fact that hezbolla have been using his phone for God only knows how long
  1. M A from Regina, Canada writes: Even if the phone was physically stolen, I now know that I won't buy a phone from Rogers. It is totally unreasonable for a company to "act normal" when a client's account expense goes from $75 to $12500
  1. Eamon Hoey from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Mike Bush from North York, Canada writes:
  1. john zappa from Montreal, Canada writes:  
    If her phone was stolen while she was away and she had left it at home then that would mean someone broke into her home... she would have noticed a break in right away (and reported it to the police)... was anything else robbed? It sounds more plausible that it was cloned, that's why she does not know what happened with her phone (maybe). 
    It is not reassuring to know that Middle Eastern and Central Asian crime and or terrorists groups run around corporate Canada with sophisticated electronic equipment used to hack our communications systems (is this tip of the iceberg; no wonder the Americans are cringing at how we handle security issues here). 
    Oh yeah, Rogers customer service was always bad for me. 
    I like the comment about the Chretien and Liberal party connection, is that why Quebecor media blocked Rogers attempt to take over Videotron?
  1. Andrew Civil from Nepean, Canada writes: I have a Virgin Mobile pre-paid phone. Meter-me and pay later schemes 
    are bad enough for electricity, water and gas (at least in theory you 
    get the chance to read your own meter weekly if you wish, and physical 
    constraints take care of limiting liability) but for a cellphone, it's 
    lunacy. Unfortunately, it will take a lot more stories like this before 
    people realise. Hey, I don't even like having it on my land phone.


$12,000 bill forgiven, Rogers will come to tea

By PETER CHENEY , The Globe and Mail, December 19, 2005 

Readers comments:

  1. Law Reform from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Law Reform from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Rey Dunca from Toronto, Canada writes: Bravo to Ms. Drummond and her partner! Bravo!
  1. The Skipper from Edmonton, Canada writes:
  1. Sandra Brown from Hamilton, Ontario, Canada writes: Kudos to Ms Drummond and Mr Gefen. Last month I went through the same experience with Rogers, except that my bill was much less. Had they activated their fraud-detection software they would have realized that the number of calls from my husband's cell had gone from 3 or 4 per month to close to 100 in one weekend including downloads. When my husband called Rogers they refused to talk with him because it was my name on the contract. Receiving a replacement phone was a nightmare and Rogers insisted on extending the conract for one year because we had to buy this new phone. It had been pure torture dealing with Rogers.
  1. Hugh Thompson from Toronto, Canada writes: I've followed this story withe great interest. Ms. Drummond had her phone stolen and someone rang up $12,000 worth of bills. 
    What does a stolen phone have to do with "terror" groups cloning Ted Rogers cellphone number seven or eight years ago? Could it be that headlines like "terror groups clone cell numbers" sells a lot more papers? 
    This story is really about the responsibility for the cost of cell calls after a phone has been stolen.  
    I wholeheartedly agree that all wireless companies (including Rogers) need to be very clear with customers about costs subscribers are on the hook for if their phone is stolen but I think the Globe turning this story into a "terrorist" story was in poor taste. 
    Hugh Thompson 
    Digital Home Canada
  1. Casey Circelli from Moncton, Canada writes:
  1. Alexander Dryden from Ottawa, Canada writes:
  1. jeff peters from toronto, Canada writes: Don't fret people.These contracts are worded that in such a way that most people think they are helpless if a dispute arises.Generally, sympathetic judges can throw out the contract if they feel that the consumer is being wronged.It is more of a deterrent than anything.Remember the billing scandal Rogers went through years ago.Most companies will settle rather than risk going to court and having their contracts reviewed under the courts' and media's microscope.
  1. Richard D from Quebec, Canada writes: Although it's always attractive to pick on the big guy, I think we 
    should consider how careless Ms. Drummond was with regards to her 
    cell-phone.Her inability to protect her belongings is not the 
    company's fault in any way.She's just lucky that the company 
    handled the situation in bad faith, particularly by not reacting to the 
    erratic phone pattern that had developed.
  1. Maria Loi from Vancouver, Canada writes:
  1. A S from Cambridge, Canada writes: Congratulations to Ms. Drummond and Mr. Grefen for fighting Rogers on this. This past year I too, have had some issues with Rogers and their ridiculous cell phone rules and policies. After about 10 phone calls with their "customer service" department, I gave up and paid the bill. It was not the same issue as Ms. Drummond's, it was more of an issue of Rogers not living up to their side of a fee contract that they proposed to me. After I signed up for a two year contract, a couple months later they reneged on their side of the agreement, told me they never offered me what I said and then all kinds of charges started appearing on my statement (that'll teach me for not asking them to provide me with something in writing-the whole thing was done over the phone) Of course to cancel, I was charged $200 per phone. I was really misled. Never again will I deal with Rogers! And the most infuriating part was that after the final phone call in which the "customer service" agent told me in a surly tone that there was nothing she could do about the cancellation charges; they called me weekly to offer me "deals". NO thank you Rogers!
  1. Allan Malinen from Riverport, Canada writes:
  1. Charles Flynn from Vancouver, Canada writes: Incredible, even though I agree that this is one small step for the consumer and one even smaller step for Ted Rogers and his monolithic company, it is a step in the right direction.Unfortunately, there is a two tiered legal system and jounalistic system in our country.The Drummond's problems pale in comparision to the eighteen month legal battle I have fought with Rogers and I have now sued them in small claims court to try and get some justice. The bottom line is Ted Roger's does NOT care and only pretends to care to mute any type of jounalistic investigation into the predatory practices of the most consumer unresponisive company in Canada's corporate history.The most egregious thing is the Drummond's get justice, not because they deserve (although they do) but because of who they are and Ted steals our money, not beacause he deserves, but because of who he is in our corporate world.So is this justice, which is allowed to be obtained to shut the rest of us up, any worse than the original injustice that Rogers seeks to perpetrate on us.
  1. Andrew Yu from Markham, Canada writes: If Ted Rogers is as smart as the size of his wealth, he better make sure that someone in Rogers gets fired over this debacle.In too many large companies, too many people forget that it is the customer who gave them their jobs, not their holier-than-thou attitude.
  1. Kristopher Noseworthy from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Why does it take an Osgoode Hall law professor and a technology journalist to obtain this kind of common-sense justice? How many people have the skills and resources to take this fight to Roger's doorstep like they did?
  1. joe bloke from toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Magdelane Stark from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. bruce edwards from Ottawa, Canada writes: There are two issues in this story, the 2nd and more important one seems to have been missed.  In the case of Ms. Drummond, the calls were made from a stolen phone, i.e from the physical phone that the system identified correctly. 
    The more important point is the "cloning" of cell phones.  If it is posible that one can make one cell phone appear to the system to be another phone then the whole system is corrupted.  Theoretically anyone could charge their calls to another phone, and the bills would be meaningless.  Since cell phones can be located in space when they are active, cloning would allow someone to appear to be in a different location than his actual one, allowing for phony alibis etc.This part of the story needs to be enlarged upon, to clarify exactly what happened.  Any plans I had to use a cell phone are postponed indefinitely until this is sorted out and the flaw in the system repaired.
  1. Henric Wiegenbroeker from Toronto, Canada writes: Wouldn't Ms. Drummond's house insurance our car insurance cover damages incurred as a result of the theft of her cell phone? This question was not addressed at all.
  1. colleen young from mississauga, Canada writes: Coincidentally,I just got off the phone with Fido after reporting that my telephone was lost or stolen Friday evening.They advised me that I would be responsible for all calls since that time and that they did not have tracking devices.I would have to wait for my invoice (which arrives January 8th) to determine if any charges had been incurred.Fido is also owned by Rogers.Ironically, yesterday evening I tried to report it missing and after I called them they stated they were closed and to visit the web site is a section to report lost or stolen phones on the site however when I tried to do so, I had to register, and the registration process involved them sending to me a password that could only be accessed via my "HANDSET".Go figure. We'll see how this transpires.I intend to keep this article should I need it come January 8th.
  1. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Bravo. It's nice to see someone finally win against our "media companies" which are AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL at dealing with their customers. I for one already have both Rogers and especially BCE on my list of companies to hate and refuse to buy anything from either.... Actually I guess I shouldn't be reading the G&M then. Darn.
  1. Hugh Roddis from Halifax, Canada writes: Just like to add that contracts of this type occur in a wide range of 
    industries. The banking and finance industry in an example. Partially 
    driven by the new money laundering laws, but also in a spirit of self 
    interest I suspect, there are now form contracts for everything - if 
    you read the small print you find that you are signing away many rights 
    that you would normally expect to have, and often, the rights of your 
    offspring too. I have had some success by just crossing out the parts I 
    don't like, but usually the take-it-or-leave-it attitude prevails, and 
    if my changes ever got to court, I image the company would fight 
    them.Again there may be no option, because the competition often 
    has just the same paperwork.
  1. Joel B from Vancouver, Canada writes:
  1. C H from nowheresville, Canada writes: I want to personally thank Ms. Drummond and Mr. Gefen for fighting a fight that obviously deserved to be fought.I have been ticked off more then once at corporations such as Rogers and Bell, and had to swallow a hard pill on more then one occasion.Anyone who takes the fight into the public forum and makes the corp. behave as it should, is doing a service for all customers.So thank you for all your hard work!
  1. Ian Fardoe from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. a p from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Darryl Byrne from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Scott Spencer from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. gerhard beck from Oakville, Canada writes: Hurrah for technology. If Rogers can detect misuse, why did they in this case not find out about it, or did they? I mat be old fashioned, but all telecoms can keep their cellphones including TV screens etc.. The net and a regular line suffice.
  1. marc whitham from Markham, Canada writes:
  1. s t from Montreal, Quebec, Canada writes: Chapeau Ms. Drummond. (i.e.hats off!). One has to be a law professor to fight back big corporations -- yet, we have plenty of associations and government structured organizations which are supposed to protect consumer rights. Yet, none of them intervened or was effective in this case and many other similar cases. While the debate for an election is going on -- no leader of an official party has chosen to debate this particular and very important issue. I rest my case.
  1. Riad Mohammed from Canada writes:
  1. A Smythers from Sudbury, Canada writes: Excellent work.Congratulations!!One wonders if this 
    dispute would have been settled thiseasily if the media was not 
    this involved.  
    I'm looking for a new cell phone at the moment, and it won't be Rogers.
  1. Maynard Krebs from Corona, United States writes: Of course Rogers wants to pay off this customer and make the issue disappear from the headlines. This will also insure that few others will have the same positive outcome as Ms. Drummond.  
    Larger issue #1: By knowingly leaving the meter running, Rogers profits from illegal activity.Larger issue #2: By knowingly leaving the meter running, Rogers aids and abets organized crime.Larger issue #3: By knowingly leaving the meter running, Rogers aids and abets international terror.Larger issue #4: There is insufficient competition in Canada for the businesses that Rogers is in. Rogers is not a monopoly, but it is an oligopoly.Larger issue #5: As in the USA, contractual provisions that require customers to "sign away" their legal rights should be null and void in court.
  1. Alan Davis from Leduc, Canada writes:
  1. Terry McBride from London, Ontario, Canada writes: Thank goodness for professional people like Ms. Drummond and her partner who take the time and interest to resolve their own problems and extend their service to include the interests of others who are equally aggrieved but much less capable of holding large corporations and governments accountable.Problems similar to these effect most everybody and are not limited to Rogers and the communications industry.It is very difficult for an ordinary, individual customer to tackle corporate giants.You are truly our heros, we wish you success and we thank you for you efforts.
  1. Ron Cook from Timmins, Canada writes:
  1. Matt Hartman from Calgary, Canada writes:
  1. Anthony Seow from Markham, Canada writes: It is good to see Corporate Titans "doing the right thing" for a change.Hat's off to Mr. Rogers.He demonstrates what it takes to elevate a company from an "average" company to becoming a corporate leader and partner in the community it operates in.I believe the next step is push-down in his leadership style and management philosophy.Ted Rogers, Sr. would be proud.
  1. Darren Mather from Vancouver, Canada writes: Shame on Ted Rogers. I will never use his phone company. Talk about negative advertizing!
  1. Bud Pfaff from Peterborough, ON, Canada writes: Now that results of these as Voluntary as Breathing, ONE SIDED "Contracts of Adhesion" have been exposed, why doesn't the Province of Ontario pass a law forbiding, or nulifyingthem, to give citizens a fighting chance?Bud Pfaff, Peterborough ON
  1. Mark Zaburs from Victoria, Canada writes:
  1. kevin rose from Canada writes:
  1. bill mcdonald from Canada writes: I wonder if being a professor at Osgoode Hall had anything to do with reaching a settlement. Hopefully, others can benefit from this experience also.
  1. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes:
  1. Charles Butler from Cazorla, writes: Business as usual at the cellphone companies! I visited home last year to find a notice from a collection agency demanding a hundred-odd dollars due to Rogers for a cell number I thought I had put in abeyance, if not outright cancelled. The notice was a bit stale so I found I had a credit record for the first time in my life. A call to Rogers informed me that nothing could be done because I only had a month after receving a bill to dispute the charges. Not even by paying can I get rid of the record, according to the agency that records all this stuff. All this after about 15 years of faithfully paying thousands of dollars on time. 
    But it's universal. Here, I bought a cellphone with a thoughtfully designed keypad. The by far mostly likely button to push accidentally with the phone in your pocket was the one that connected to the web at some exhorbitant rate. Try beefing about that one. 
  1. Michael Long from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Chris Ash from Victoria, Canada writes:
  1. jo ts from Victoria, Canada writes: Rogers is an absolutely terrible company in the manner they treated this customer and all their other customers with disputes. Their approach on fees and plans are opaque and not clear. Look at what they did to Fido's simple fee plans. None of them are around anymore. These are all points of a terrible company. I suggest that businesses like contractors who have cell phones for their employees look at raido networks and long range cordless phones as alternatives like our firm has done to get away from cells. Go see
  1. David Hillman from Calgary, Canada writes:
  1. Glenn Jorgensen from Delta, Canada writes:
  1. John Hinkley from Thornhill, ON, Canada writes:
  1. Lyle Truden from Kelowna, Canada writes: I have always wondered why Cell phone Companies are allowed to charge 
    such rediculous amounts for Local Use.I believe that Land Line 
    telephones are restricted to certain laws because communication is an 
    essential service.Why not cell phones?Personally as a 
    working college student I only have a cell phone because I am never 
    home to answer an ordinary phone.Cell phones are many peoples 
    primary source of communication, due to their convenience.  
    Frankly I believe that like a land line Cell Phone companies should 
    have to offer an unlimited anytime local call plan, for a reasonable 
    rate.I understand it may be more then a land line because the 
    technology may be more expensive.To get a cell phone with 
    unlimited local calls, and a decent long distance plan equal to a land 
    line would cost MANY times more.It is just crazy.
  1. Greg Macedo from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Grace Yauza from Calgary, Canada writes:
  1. Victoria Horobin from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. FRED SOMERS from WHITE ROCK, B.C., Canada writes: Ted Rogers is tough, but when pushed and if his name is tarnished he will get invloved and do all he can to settle the problem. I know I was employed with Rogers Cable. 
    Great Company - all he requested is that you do your job and do it well, however on the other side of the coin the new owners of Rogers Cable in B.C., - SHAW you would never get any assistance from them on anything and you can't blacken their name - they don't care and really don't have a name worth protecting.  
    Good job Ted.
  1. Sarah digout from London, Canada writes: Thank you Ms Drummond and Mr. Geffen. Your actions give me a tinge of hope for the future of the individual and, thus, I am slightly less jaded to my future than I usually am. This story moved something inside me that is essential but dormant and I don't believe it has anything to do with education, money, or media interest in terrorism, but rather, one persons desire to see that the right thing gets done. Tenacity is the tool to do it.
  1. john stolarski from Canmore, Alberta, Canada writes:
  1. b mac from greater vancouver, Canada writes: Ted Rogers company has always operated his communications businesses with special licenses and privilages granted to him and his company by the Government CRTC. For his company to operate in this fashion is beyond belief. His cell phone business should be investgated by the regulators and appropriate actions taken.
  1. Rob Q from Hamilton, Ontario, Canada writes: Sorry to drag the election slightly into this, but after reading a story like this I am further convinced that pro-business election platforms that emphasize cutting "bureaucratic red tape" (rules and regulations) to stimulate economic activity is a bad way to go - the whole idea that the market will self-regulate to treat customers fairly (e.g. if you screw your customers, your customers will take their business elsewhere) is a load of garbage.There are similar such anecdotes to be told regarding all major cell phone companies, as the thread so far has shown.Myself, I had it in with Bell, and after reading this thread I'm not sure if I have any better options to switch over to.
  1. Jon Herman from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Stan Graves from Fredericton, Canada writes: Do you know where your cell phone is?
  1. dave butts from guelph, Canada writes: The sad thing about this story is that it didn't much surprise me. I 
    became a Rogers Wireless customer in september and have had to deal 
    with their contemptuous attitude as well - at one point i was charged 
    $18 to download a ringtone that i was told would be free. I called and 
    demanded that the charge be removed, which it was.  
    But after other problems with the company i developed the sense that 
    this company nickel'n'dimes ya for anything their greedy minds can 
    think of. The agreements not to sue are direct violations of a 
    customer's right to make the company responsible for their service. A 
    charter is given to a company to serve the public good, and Rogers 
    should keep this in mind.  
  1. Howard Young from Ottawa, Canada writes:
  1. Patrick Leckie from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. gordon foster from toronto, Canada writes: I am wondering now how the Skydome, paid for by Ontario taxpayers, came to be rechristened the Rogers Centre.  Did someone in government or the Blue Jays organisation just run up too large a bill?  Why not boycott Rogers?  Couldn't Toronto residents survive without cable TV, on which Rogers has a monopoly?  And I suggest that everyone switch to prepaid cellphones.  I had one last year with Bell and I never had a problem like this.
  1. Jonathan Dick from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. David Attridge from Chatham, Canada writes: How unfortunate for this couple, however, how fortunate for the rest of us that they ahppen be be a Law Professor and Technology Journalist.How could any other 2 people have accomplished what they did without their skills and knowledge?I hope taht Rogers, Bell and all the other companies out there, technology and otherwise, sit up and take notice.Sometimes that little customer has some power and influence.
  1. Dan Baril from Oakville, Canada writes:  
    Kudos to Drummond/Gefen, for sure, BUT EVEN GREATER KUDOS, to Globe's Peter Cheney for taking the story. The story sells itself, true, thanks to the complainants hard work, knowledge, and ingenuity, leading Cheney/Globe to taking it on, but still a good deal of the credit for the outcome goes to Cheney/Globe for recognizing this story for what it was, not just what it was worth, and for reporting on it the way it did that yielded real results so fast. Contrary to an earlier posting, using the link to terrorism and the embarrassment with the same thing happening to Rogers executives was a brilliant strategy for getting this story in the headlines. Keep in mind, until this past Saturday when the story appeared in the Globe [click here] this story was not much attention. Granted, I believe Drummond/Gefen would have eventually been successful in court had the matter reached that far - it would'nt have - but the key word is "eventually."What Cheney/Globe accomplished was a considerable shrinking of the timeframe and also helped determine part of the outcome. No way would a successful court ruling included afternoon tea. This more than anything else proves the power of effective communications and strategy. To Drummond/Gefen I say please don't view afternoon tea with Ted as your just-reward, but rather as your golden opportunity to try and do more good.
  1. Sohail Toronto, Resident from Toronto, Canada, Canada writes:
  1. Jeff Chaplin from Toronto, Canada writes:
  1. Matthew Baldwin from Canada writes:
  1. Terry Halverson from Moncton, Canada writes: This comes as no surprise to me. Big business just doesn't care. It's not just Rogers, it's every large corporation. Every ISP, every oil company, every communications company, etc etc. The best book you could ever read on this type of behaviour is titled Your Call Is Important to Us: The Truth About Bullshit: by Laura Penny. Everything these companies say and do is BS, only meant to confuse people and to put their own spin on things. And to protect their own asses, IE: the clause regarding not being able to sue them. I worked for a call center at one point, and I was appalled to hear what others were telling customers, and what I was expected to tell them. Outright lies for Godsakes. I quit after a few weeks because I was ashamed to be in what was called a "customer service" center that fed cutomers bullshit and lies. And this was with a national company with thousands of employees. The service center staff of places like Rogers are all trained to say the same thing I imagine. They are scripted responses. When you can actually get to TALK to a live person. The lame phone number punch systems are just the very first defence for companies. They know a certain % of people will just give up after trying to use this crap. just like insurance companies train their adjusters and managers to always decline the case on the first call. Then only offer the smallest settlement claim. Then threaten to sue, etc etc. That was all proven on a CBC investigative report show. So remember, whatever they tell you at big business, it is BS from their spin doctors.
  1. David M. from Kelowna, Canada writes: