How a terror group cloned Ted Rogers' cellphone
By PETER CHENEY , The Globe and Mail, Saturday, December 17, 2005
Readers comments
- 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
- István P from Thornhill, Canada writes:
You go girl!
Tsk, tsk Ted. You know that this customer is in the right. Maybe you should use your "system access fee" revenue to pay for the added staff requirements to monitor these acts of thievery. It's a numbers game to Rogers and you've got to give her credit for not being a sucker and shoving it down their throat!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 4:12 AM EST
- HUCK FINN from Dallas, United States writes:
Ms. Drummond's difficulty with Rogers does not surprise me.I battled them for a year over significant financial errors in their favour.Customer service is not their forte or even on their radar for that matter.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 6:12 AM EST
- James Young from Brantford, Canada writes:
Ho, Ho, Ho. It couldn't happen to a better group than Rogers.
The telephone rules have to be changed. The supplying company has to be made liable for the costs of fraudulent calls.
Bell made millions on phony calls and got away with it for years and did nothing. People were getting below $100.00 charges on their bills that were fraudulant, and Bell smiled and took the money and did nothing. Even the media ignored the issue.
Security is the suppliers responsibility. Legislation is required.
Durgan.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 7:09 AM EST
- A L from Milton, ON, Canada writes:
Perhaps in light of what happened to Ms. Drummond, we (the Rogers Wireless customers) should call Rogers Wireless and ask if something similar happened to us would they insist we pay. If the answer is yes, then we should let them know that our business will go elsewhere. If the answer is no, then we should demand that her bill be credited in full. Also they should give her a $5,000 credit on her bill for her troubles.
As a Rogers shareholder, I don't want my dividends coming from cloned phone long distance charges. If this is not corrected, Rogers Wireless will lose customers, the stock price will decrease and so will the dividends.
Mr. Rogers, being the ethical person you are, bring some fairness into this situation.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 7:14 AM EST
- Roy Jones from Toronto, Canada writes:
Thats not the only thing Rogers likes todo thats fradulent and neglegent. Not just interrupt but purpossfully harrass you, even use terror tactics in order to try to wrestle early payment from there customers. Ted Rogers is no better than a Terrorist and should be jailed for the disgusting bussiness practises he enggages in. When my bill was 1 month over dure my line became fuzzy, then i couldnt make out going calls anymore.Then I started to get anonymous calls at all hours that would either hang up on me or there would be an automated attendant who had all the vocal tones of a threatening person..Scary Stuff. These companys are evil!They have machines that know everything about you and they useit to intimidate and threaten you if they feel your not paying quite as fast as theyd like.I had hoped Rogers would be different but there not.They actually Crank call me regularily when my bills over due!They call and then just hang up half the time and then later when i have decided it must be them ill get a snarky evil sounding recording reminding me to call Rogers! Talk about a sick mentality. That is not ethical bussiness practises and they should be held accountable and executives like Ted Rogers should be charged with crimes of Harrassment, Fraud, Violations of the privacy act, etc and Slapped with huge fines and investigated for unsound bussiness practises. Its time to take back Bell Canada back for the Citizens of Canada. I mean after all it was the Canadian citizens that paid for Bell in full through taxes back in the first half of the 20th century!Our Parents Grandparents and GreatGrandparents paid through taxes for years so that we could have the freedom of speech that telephones are supposed to be used for!How can some Greedy Evil Corporation steal that right away from us?? Ted Rogers i think i speak for most people who have ever used Rogers when i say You Sir have No Honour!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 7:37 AM EST
- Roy Jones from Toronto, Canada writes:
Ted Rogers is the real terrorist!
How Can these companys charge us for what our Grandparents paid for through their taxes???
They paid for the Bell Canada Phone company so that we would have the freedom of speech!!!
I have never heard anybody say anything nice about Ted Rogers its time to hold these old crooners accountable for there neglagent bussiness practises
That makes me sick that they would try to extract $14,000 from a customer becasue they know she has a perfect credit rating and makes good money! But it doesnt surprise me
Bell Canada destroyed my credit rating over a $600 bill when i only owe them half of that!I spent 20 hrs trying to discuss it with there people but everytime i had them close to addmitting their error they would hang up on me!!!
For just half of what Bell Canada did to me (destroyed my realtionship by strategically pulling the plug on my conversations so that she though i was just hanging up on her) they should be returned to the Canadian public forever!
Our familys paid for it why should we allow the evil emplyees of Bell to profit on our tax dollars?There so Evil they even screw there own employees regularily, look how they slashed all there retirement pensions!People that had been there 40yrs were left out in the dark! I guess thats what they get for being complicit with an evil corporation!
This is exactly what is sending American companies like Enron down the tubes!
This is what Pres Bush says he is going to hold American Executives accountable for
Take back your rights dont work for and dont subscribe to these companies!
How do you deal with a corporation when the Corporation is Evil?
All it takes for Evil to persist is for Good People to do Nothing!!!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 7:48 AM EST
- 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!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 8:01 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 8:49 AM EST
- The Skipper from Edmonton, Canada writes:
Oh this is priceless ! I just loved reading this story ! Good for you Ms. Drummond. The arrogance of the Roger's Cell phone folks is not good public relations. Why should she settle this out of court. "Yes," lets go to court and have the Globe & Mail cover the court proceedings and what the Judge has to say.
And Ms. Innes , Why are you contradicting your fellow worker Ms. Hopper ?
This is why I gave up my Roger's Cell Phone account after being a customer since 1989!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 9:03 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 9:08 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 9:20 AM EST
- 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?
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 9:27 AM EST
- J G from Canada writes: YOU GO GIRL!!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 9:31 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 10:16 AM EST
- George Gianos from Canada writes: Good for her! Cell phone companies have been screwing consumers for too long. Time to take charge!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 10:23 AM EST
- Richard Pearson from Ottawa, Canada writes:
Bravo Ms. Drummond & Mr. Gefen!Brilliant detective work.I admire your tenacity.
I've often wanted to take on Rogers when they do something idiotic on my cable or long distance accounts, then I just figure it's not worth it.Thank you for inspiring me to do something next time.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 10:26 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 10:28 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 10:57 AM EST
- Alexander Dryden from Ottawa, Canada writes:
An excellent, fascinating story. But, do Rogers' top executives pay the inflated invoices? If they do, they're knowingly contributing funds/services to terrorists -- a crime, no? If they don't, they're stealing from shareholders -- a crime, no?
Which is it?
The nub, as reported: If Rogers has the technology/software to identify and stop the criminal practice, but does not use it -- is it stupidity or cupidity?
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 11:02 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 11:09 AM EST
- kevin rose from Canada writes:
this is why we have to rely on the government to pass laws to protect us
to rogers cell phone division, when Susan Drummond wins this i hope she is also paid for her time at a not to generous $100/hour and maybe say $500,000 for pain and suffering. and then i really hope that a class action lawsuit is filed against you and your customer base dwindles to nothing .
as i call this a blatant screw up on your part for not spotting this and calling the customer as visa has done to me several times over the years while out of town and making large purchases, i label you as thieves not worthy of customers.
subscriber
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 11:12 AM EST
- 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?
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 11:54 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 11:55 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 12:00 PM EST
- David Howell from Salt Spring Is., Canada writes:
"Roses" to the Globe and Mail for the story.
Hang in there Ms. Drummond,well done on your investigation, & good luck in court.
To Rogers I say "SHAME ON YOU" & congratulations. You have just made my personal BOYCOTT list! You will join other large arrogant companies ( the likes of SONY) that do not treat their customers with respect and consideration. You have demonstarted by your actions that you do not deserve customer loyalty. I pledge to you that I will NOT be having anything to do with your company until such time as you are able to restore my confidance in you. How you will ever do that I have absolutly NO idea, nor do I care.We have options. You are not the only cell provider!
I urge all consumers to use the ultimate power of BOYCOTT to determine the success or failure of these large corp. which feel that they do not owe anything to thier clients.
Dave Howell, Salt Spring Is. B.C.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 12:04 PM EST
- Brent Toole from Ottawa, Canada writes:
To S Larin- I totally agree.What proof is there that "terrorists" made the calls.Maybe it was a family, maybe not.The headline is inflamatory and inaccurate.Come on G&M.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 12:15 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 12:16 PM EST
- 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.
JWL
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 12:17 PM EST
- James Young from Brantford, Canada writes:
I love it. I love it. I love it.
It is hoped the Globe will keep the story alive with ongoing follow-ups.
Never have I seen such an outporing of agreement on an issue.
Now if only one political party could get such agreement, what a landslide that would be for the lucky group.
Go get them. Maybe Rogers will make their system secure as it should be in practice.
My, I would love to be on a jury deciding an award. Guilty. Guilt. Guilty. My decision would make the awards on malpractice medical suits in Missiissippe and Alabama look like pocket change.
Durgan.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 12:19 PM EST
- Eugene Sendelweck from Toronto, Canada writes:
It is obvious that strong legislation is urgently required to protect consumers against the corporate dictators of our western society.When Canadians become less complacent and more ready to express themselves publicly on issues, the situation will improve.Write your elected officials and the candidates running in the current election and ask them where they stand, and do it NOW!
Eugene Sendelweck
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 12:24 PM EST
- Marc M from Calgary, Canada writes:
So where is the government and the CRTC in all of this? They should be protecting the rights of Canadian citizens against this sort of abuse and harrassment.
Just to let people know about another piece of dirty business that Rogers and possibly other cell phone companies engage in. A few years ago I decided to purchase a GSM cell phone because I travel outside of Canada and wanted the freedom to take my cell phone with me to use when travelling. When I tried to put a foreign 'pay as you go SIM' in my phone, it would not let the SIM go active unless I put in an UNLOCK code. I paid retail price for the phone (not the cheap price you get when signing up for a long term plan) and yet found out that Rogers had locked my phone so that I could not use it with any other carrier. When I returned to Canada, I phoned them and they informed me that if I paid a fee of $200 hey would unlock the phone for me.
This is like them selling me a house and then charging me to get the keys. I tried to file a complaint with the CRTC and they informed me they would do nothing about it. That I should talk to Rogers to solve the problem. As if the people who were trying to extort money from me were going to do anything!!!
To Ms. Drummond - there are probably thousands of people out there who would join a class action suit and who would contribute to a fund to go after these people. Just let us know how to contact you if you're interested!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 12:37 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 12:39 PM EST
- Rob dueck from London Ontario, Canada writes:
Im not sure if I have been a victim of fraud but after getting ALOT of cell phone bills from Rogers and them running it through on my credit car - I cancelled my account and wont be using a cell phone anymore.
Lessons Learned
a) EXTREMELY negative experience dealing with Rogers
b) MUCH cheaper to use a landline - if its important, they will leave a message
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 12:42 PM EST
- Sandie H from Toronto, Canada writes:
I'm so glad someone is finally standing up to these corporate giants who always charge fees and stand by their charge. It isn't until you harass them to death that they retract. The onus should be on them to ensure that their system is working well. Buyer beware? I don't think so. Corporate giant with means to protect their clients vs. client who only knows what is going on AFTER they get their bill. Clearly, justice dictates that the corporate giant bear the burden here. I can't believe they're even fighting it.
I'm also curious to know why they didn't stop the calls in this case. I agree with Ms. Drummond re: creditworthiness.
You go Ms. Drummond!
(to Globe and Mail - I would also appreciate it if you kept up with this case)
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 12:47 PM EST
- Terry Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada writes:
Remember too folks that Ted Rogers is a personal friend of Jean Chretien, and a member of the Liberal Party. How do you think he got his cable, and wireless deals!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 1:00 PM EST
- D B R from somewhere, Canada writes:
Wow this did bring out the crazies.NO one has asked when she called in.These charges are not false, she lost her phone and didn't bother to call to say hey block my line before somethings happens.Instead she waited until she got home and them called.. and so if responible for the calls because she was too slow to act.If this had been her visa or mastercard, she would called teh second she knew it was lost, a cell phone is no different.
And to these people who think rogers or bell cuts off your calls or lower your call quality because you are late in paying your bill... get off the crack.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 1:00 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 1:03 PM EST
- Neil W. Humphrey from Vancouver, Canada writes:
Well done & great investigative workd by these 2 noble citizens!!!
Shame, shame on Rogers for talking out of both sides of their mouth. You've got to ask where the CRTC & the other Telco regulators are in this one as it's bad biz for them all.
IMO this suit warrants going class action as I'm sure thousands across the country have been in the same situation as these 2. Time the consumer had a chance to go after Rogers!!!!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 1:09 PM EST
- Ryan Peatt from Victoria, Canada writes:
To Brent: The title of the article states how terrorists stole Ted Rogers cell phone, not Ms. Drummonds. The author states that senior Rogers executives had their phones repeatedly cloned by a group linked to Hezbollah. It is unknown who cloned Ms. Drummonds phone.
Brent Toole from Ottawa, Canada writes:
To S Larin- I totally agree.What proof is there that "terrorists" made the calls.Maybe it was a family, maybe not.The headline is inflamatory and inaccurate.Come on G&M.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 1:22 PM EST
- Hershl Berman from Ontario, Canada writes:
I do not know of a service provider who has not managed to infuriate at least one customer.Rogers is no better or worse than any other large company
I cannot accept one of the earlier rantings that the executives of such a large public company authorize harrassment and crank calls, interfering with their love lives.Such insane invention disrupts the flow of serious discussion.
What this story clearly illustrates is that large companies need to have legitmate and effective dispute resolution mechanisms.
I have not found a telephone company that does.However, to be fair, after suffering without high speed internet for almost a month and spending about 100 hours on the issue in that time, I was able to persuade a large provider to compensate me reasonable well with free service for a few months.But I had to contact the CEO to get my service fixed.
We need better governmental regulation. Maybe this should be an election issue.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 1:22 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 1:32 PM EST
- maryetta thielen from Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada writes:
I wonder how many other Cdns are out there with Rogers accounts they know nothing about. Five yrs ago we received a bill for an overdue account, of around 400.00. I phoned about it, and informed them that we had never had a cell phone, and an error had been made. I was informed a contract had been signed by my husband, in Edmonton, for this account. It had been in excistence for several yrs. and until then, had always been paid. Of course the address was not ours. We have never lived in Edmonton. Somehow they traced us down, to our local telus land line, and started harrassing us. I loved the calls asking where my husband could be reached by cell phone. Still don't have one. Faxes were sent to us of the contract, signed in my husbands name, but it was not his signature. This bill has been sent to numerous collection agencies, each worse than the previous one. I now give them a number my husband can be reached at. Just happens to be the Consumer and Corporate Affairs number in Alberta. It is unfortunate that many cdns will pay a bill they don't owe, when it is under 100.00, rather than fight. My credit rating has been ruined, according to Rogers, and when I asked what that meant I was told if I wanted to rent from Blockbuster I would have trouble. That really scared me. I was asked how I could prove my husband had not signed the contract-he has only been to Edmonton twice in 69 yrs, and the day the contract was signed, he was in ICU in Lethbridge, with a heart attack.Didn't help. As an accountant and tax preparer, I see evidence of these scams every year by many companies. They go after those least able to fight or pay and are afraid of a threatened court action. Do the math, even a 10.00 wrong charge x the number of customers means millions. We are too trusting of big business. Wonder what political party they support.
An INSIDER Edition subscriber
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 1:33 PM EST
- 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!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 1:34 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 1:40 PM EST
- Baljit Johal from Canada writes:
I have a friend who says that Ted Rogers has the reverse Midas Touch- Anything he touches turns to crap.
I have been boycotting Rogers products for nearly a decade, after lengthy disputes regarding my cable service.I have been carrying a Fido Brand mobile phone since 1998, and never experienced an issue that was not handled to my satisfaction.Earlier in 2005, Rogers completed their takeover of Fido, and since then not only has the quality of signal service decreased, but so has the level of customer service that comes with the package.Reading this story makes me realise that I can no longer wait till number portability arrives in just over a year to switch carriers.
Rogers companies are more than keen to take your money, but will do anything they can to shirk their responsibilities to the customer.I read in a report last year that Rogers ranked at or very near the top of all companies that consumers have expressed a lack of quality customer service from.
This article sends out a very simple message: Buyer Beware- If you don't want to be the victim of corporate fraud, take your money elsewhere.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 1:46 PM EST
- 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!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 2:09 PM EST
- James Young from Brantford, Canada writes:
CRTC has nothing to do With Bell or Rogers. Many people think the CRTC regulates telephones. This is simply not the case.
As far as I know phone companies are unregulated. Read the first page of your phone book and it states that you are responsible for all calls from the number you list.
I recently had a fight will Bell on behalf of long distance calls using a number to some African country. They tried to weasel out of the situation citing international agreements, etc.
I spread the story far and wide and eventually Bell removed the country phone number from their list, but Bell must have made millions for years from this practice, since they got a portion of the call charge. Good business for them.
I contacted CRTC and found that thye don't regulate phone companies.
I am suprised Rogershacks aren't swamping this story, liked they do on forums when there complicated Internet invoices is being scrutinized.
You can do anything to Canadians. They usually pay and acept the status quo without protest..
Durgan.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 2:10 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 2:12 PM EST
- Roy Jones from Toronto, Canada writes: No one could even mention to Ted that Terrosists were using his cell...this says something about Ted
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 2:12 PM EST
- Roy Jones from Toronto, Canada writes:
Such insane invention ha I love it!
No tis sad but true the quality of my phone descends the point of pure chaos when ever the bills start getting over due.Believe me I have had quite a few late bills (always make good in the end)but many times when a bill is overdue and if you just keep paying the minimum some times what they will do is not bother sending you your latest bill so that they can dissconnect the line and collect on a reconnection charge.This has happened twice to me not once the first time i was like ok it was a fluke with the postal service but now again with another company...it wasnt a coincidence they really want those reconnect fees.The one time with bell/or rogers cant remeber which when the line got really bad and my call id was completely gone I called in and enquired and they lied to me said it was A-OK on there end and said they would disspatch a technician which they wanted to charge me for.Then the next day when the line went dead all together... and then like 30minutes later they called... a girl working there told me the service had been interrupted due to the overdue bill...I knew it was them all along and through talking to a half dozen employees from underlings to managers I was able to get the truth from a younger female employee.I was furious becasue for 3 days they had been purposefully causing undue stress!Another time the quality on the phone decended for weeks until it was unmanageable huge squelches and sounds like people actually listening in on the line... Another time just recently with Rogers the ability to call out on my land line went down all together shortly after call id went...again.These are no mere coincidences I have scientifically tested my theory of phone company greed and it stands accurate!
DBR your as lame as FDR's Legs
Now Go back to your Evil Empire Overlords and tell them we aint buying!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 2:32 PM EST
- Paul Gross from Ottawa, Canada writes:
This tale of "Ted Rogers versus The Terrorists" makes one wonder who the Canadian public has less sympathy for: Rogers Corporation or Hezbollah. (I doubt real terrorst use the cell phone network, it's too easy to trace. Presumably they use this scam to fundraise.)
"She called Rogers Wireless, which told her there was nothing it could do, and she would have to pay the entire amount."
Does this mean Mr. Rogers personally pays all his own fradulent bills?
The article exposes Rogers' practise of benefiting from fraud, letting the "meter run" if they think they can eventually extract some or all of the money. And of course, they don't have to shut the phone down when they detect fraud, just block international calls until Rogers contacts the customer.
The article begs the question of whether Bell Canada (corporate parent of the Globe and Mail where this excellent article appeared) has similar practises. It's not just wireless, people get similarly victimized by unauthorized long distance and pay per call charges on landlines. Service providers pursue victims to pay even though the company could have flagged the unusual behaviour when it started. For years, phone companies profitted from calls to certain countries used by computer dialer viruses even though most calls from Canada to these countries were fraudulent.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 2:34 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 2:37 PM EST
- Roy Jones from Toronto, Canada writes:
Wait a minute Cell Phone...Terrorist Cell...Teds going to blow up the CN Tower!!!
Its been his insanely Evil Plan from the get Go, cant you see Susan Drummond is just a cover story...Ted is Bin
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 2:40 PM EST
- 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.....
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 2:43 PM EST
- 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
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 2:54 PM EST
- James Young from Brantford, Canada writes:
People are not interested in the convoluted, poorly written sory.
Just produce something adverse about Rogers, and they don't even want to know the details.
Give a little story about Rogers, and people are happy to fill in the details, imagined or otherwise.
Needless to say in most people's minds Rogers are not particularly popular.
Durgan.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 3:03 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 3:40 PM EST
- s e from Kelowna, Canada writes:
Well that reminds me of the fight I had with ROGERS about my wife's phone. She has had a pay as you go plan for 5 years, until one day a few months ago it just stopped working, she thought it was that the phone was old and just died, but when I called her cell from my TELUS cell phone, her phone had a recording saying that "this number has not been assigned"
Well we got on the phone right away, and they said that someone had tried to use a stolen credit card to access her account and that her phone has been cancelled and there is nothing we can do about it!
So we contacted their head office who tried to talk us into a 3 year plan, PFFT yeah right!! After not getting any kind of positive response from them and fighting with them for 2 months, I finally submitted a report to the BBB and within the week ROGERS reinstated her phone and added $20 to her pay as you go account.
Since then we have discontinued using ROGERS and got a family plan for ourselves through TELUS. TELUS is a much much better provider anyway, with a wider range of use, unlike rogers phones that barely work within their range, and usually don't!
I always tell people not to get ripped off by ROGERS, even had a blog about how rogers supports terrorism back in august, looks like I was more right than I knew then. I only said it as my wife was terrified about her phone number possibly having been used in a stolen credit card scam...so I labled ROGERS terrorist supporters for terrifying my wife.
SE
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 3:55 PM EST
- Ian Anderson from Calgary, Canada writes:
Well, Rogers has waited too late to undo the damage. I am not a Rogers customer and would move if I was.
This behavior is not only mean but suggests incomeptance is a corporate standard throughout the organization.
Rogers Communication does not deserve to be in business.
Now we need to know what Bell, Telus and the others have as performance standards. And what of the CRTC?
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 4:00 PM EST
- Bruce Banner from Toronto , Canada writes:
While this story confirms why I will never switch I would like to add another nail...Rogers cellphones were the only ones that didn't work during the 2003 blackout.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 4:18 PM EST
- 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?!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 4:19 PM EST
- 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?
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 4:22 PM EST
- Daniel Saucier from ottawa, Canada writes:
I definitely agree these charges are unreasonable but at what point are we not responsible for our own actions.If your car gets stolen and the driver hits another car and you didn't report it, guess what?you're responsible.If these rules weren't in place, companies would be screwed left right and center (not to say that they don't sometimes deserve it).
This customer should be responsible for her lack of responsibility.If you own a phone, you think you'd notice it missing for three weeks.I definitely believe $14000 is out of the question but her lack of responsibility is appaling and then she tries to completely pass the buck.There are soooo many issues with every single wireless carrier, how about picking a valid one to complain about.
How about Ms. Drummond, you admit your mistake and plead with Rogers to help youout because they surely don't half to and anything they do would be to your benefit.
I got my car towed 1 mth ago and ignored the letter for 3 weeks, and when i finally got the time to call, they were charging me $500 for storage fees.Of course these charges are outrageous but in essence, it's my fault for not acting on the letter.
Have a little common sense lady, aren't you a professor.Remind me to stay away from the university you're teaching at.Saty away from Ottawa U.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 4:33 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 4:50 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 4:57 PM EST
- D B R from somewhere, Canada writes:
where is the other side of story?So we've heard from Mrs Drummond'sand know her side of the story, but we all know there is more one side.. where in the Globe if the rogers's point of view.Funny how Globe, owned by bell media group didn't include that in there.Most the posts are from people who would have problems with any cell company and seem to think any large company is out to get them or have their fact wrong as rogers only bought fido this year and have not made major changes to sytem and in fact let fido customers use there network is larger.As a fido customer I was very happy to have that extended service.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 5:13 PM EST
- Harry Taylor from Cambridge, Canada writes:
If Rogers was knowingly letting people linked to a terrorist group use its' resources their should be criminal chages laid against the company. The managers that decided it would be better to let terrorists use their company resources rather than incovenience their executives should be liable for their actions.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 5:15 PM EST
- John Hallows from Toronto, Canada writes:
I think two issues are being mixed up. First off I believe Susan Drummond took her phone with her to Israel, (not left in Canada), and then it was stolen there. The phone was then cloned. We don't know when she contacted Roger's, if when she realized it was stolen or when she returned to Canada and if she did delayed notifying Rogers then she should bear some responsibility. Roger's should treat the problem like when a credit card is stolen and not bill her for unauthorized calls. Newer SIM cards that Rogers issues are harder to clone.
The issue in which a Roger Security officer say's that Ted Rogers and his executives were targeted by a sophisticated terrorist group is just based on hearsay. Scanning and cloning a GSM signal is very technically hard to do and requires an inside connection to be done properly.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 5:16 PM EST
- Duff Shot from Canada writes: The article says Ms. Drummond teaches at Osgoode, not Ottawa.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 5:33 PM EST
- 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!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 5:49 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 6:02 PM EST
- Joel B from Vancouver, Canada writes:
Remember that Roger's was racked over the coals in BC for reverse billing practices in their cable division.Why would their cellular billing ethics be any different.
With regards to cloning it should be Roger's expense as it is their security systems that are being compromised.They can hide anything they want in the fine print and yes it is our responsibility to read it. Maybe it is time to legislate the industry to simplify payment plans and conditions from detailed formulas to10 cents a minute.
You and I are paying for the fraudlent calls made on executive phones that they are not cutting off.What, you thought that Ted Rogers pays his own bill!
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 6:50 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 7:09 PM EST
- 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."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/17/rogers0512 17.html
So basically it was bad customer service and Susan Drummond got what she wanted, media attention.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 7:10 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 7:14 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 7:28 PM EST
- 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
surprises.
An INSIDER Edition subscriber
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 7:49 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 8:29 PM EST
- 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
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 8:54 PM EST
- 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
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 8:57 PM EST
- Eamon Hoey from Toronto, Canada writes:
Just one more of the many reasons why we need increased competiton in a cellular market that lacks customer focus. Should the CRTC not be looking into the terms and conditions of Rogers and all other cellular carrier's contracts?I am sure that most consumers donot realize that when they sign a service contract with a cellular carrier that the contract is unreasonable, unfair and unjust. Seems to me that the customer lacks and advocate in what is a one sided transaction. Have a look at the back of your cellular contract - you will be amazed at the terms and conditions you have agreed to.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 9:30 PM EST
- Mike Bush from North York, Canada writes:
When you use your debit card, you need to type in your PIN number.A similar function could be used for chargeable phone calls like long-distance, 1-900 numbers.(Works for both cell phones and fixed phones).
Using pre-paid phone cards is the easiest security method, but the cell phone companies make this impractical by charging 30 cents a minute for calls (50 cents a minute for long-distance!).
Does it seem to people that fraud (criminal and terrorist) is going to keep growing to the point where our whole society collapses?
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 9:38 PM EST
- 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?
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 11:48 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 17, 2005 at 11:59 PM EST
$12,000 bill forgiven, Rogers will come to tea
By PETER CHENEY , The Globe
and Mail, December 19, 2005
Readers comments:
- Law Reform from Toronto, Canada writes:
Congratulations Ms. Drummond.The
media is much more effective than the courts for resolving this type
of a dispute.
Standard form contracts, such as the Rogers service contract mentioned
in this article, are provided to customers on a "take it or leave
it" basis.If you want the service you must agree to the terms of
service as provided.These contracts are completely one-sided and often
strip away all of the meaningful rights of the weaker party (i.e. the
customer), such as the right to sue or to have a dispute resolved in
court.These contracts are drafted unilaterally by the larger and more
powerful party (i.e. the corporation) to exclusively protect their own
interest.These types of contracts are forced upon customers even for
basic services such as telephone service and cable television.Do you
think the customer really has a meaningful choice?Even if "shopping
around" is a possibility, competitors generally all have similar
terms in their own respective standard form contracts.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 4:12 AM EST
- Law Reform from Toronto, Canada writes:
These standard form contractual "agreements" have the potential to make a mockery of the law of contracts.Courts are willing to enforce these contracts (also known as contracts of adhesion) because they promote "commercial efficacy".Without a doubt it is more efficient for customers to simply have no recourse in the event of a dispute.However, these contracts seriously undermine the traditional "bargain theory" of legal contract formation.Clearly there is no bargaining occurring where one party is a large powerful corporation and the other party is a sole individual without legal training or knowledge.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 4:13 AM EST
- Rey Dunca from Toronto, Canada writes: Bravo to Ms. Drummond and her partner! Bravo!
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 5:34 AM EST
- The Skipper from Edmonton, Canada writes:
Are we not surprised that Ted Roger's himself got involved in this fiasco ! After the front page press that this story acquired over the weekend, Roger's would no doubt do anything to "fix" it.
However it took a Law Professor and a Technology writer for the Globe and Mail to get Roger's attention. In my case Roger's could care less and that is why they lost a customer forever. I guess there is a "Caste" system in Canada.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 7:12 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 8:16 AM EST
- 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
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 8:20 AM EST
- Casey Circelli from Moncton, Canada writes:
Congrats, Ms. Drummond.
When Teddy R. sits down for tea with you, please, ask him why new subscribing customers enjoy more favorable pricing and services than long-time loyal customers as well.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 8:26 AM EST
- Alexander Dryden from Ottawa, Canada writes:
(1) Should "contracts of adhesion" -- effectively "extortion" -- and contract law, generally, be subject to and tested under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
(2) Will the CRTC act to ban such contracts for those companies under its "friendly supervision"?
(3) Will Rogers refund the monies already "extorted" from others like Ms. Drummond?
(4) Will Ms. Drummond count her fingers after shaking hands with Rogers?
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 8:29 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 8:29 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 8:32 AM EST
- Maria Loi from Vancouver, Canada writes:
I am glad the media stands up for little ones. This age of technology, big brother situation has to be control.
I am very glad for them that they stick it out and won!
Merrry Christmas to everyone!
regards,
Maria Loi
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 8:36 AM EST
- 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!
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 8:47 AM EST
- Allan Malinen from Riverport, Canada writes:
Rogers PR problem here was bad enough to get the attention of the CEO. It was Rogers misfortune that the victims were a Law Professor and a technology journalist. Had Drummond and Gefen been less able to defend themselves, Rogers could have quietly crushed them. I suspect, this typical of the ethical standards of the corporate world.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 8:59 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:02 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:05 AM EST
- 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?
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:07 AM EST
- joe bloke from toronto, Canada writes:
I have had similar experience with two major US multinational corporations. One is with other major Canadian Cell phone provider "TELUS" and other one was "HP". I escalated my grievances to higher up in the organization and even send a letter to CEO and senior managers but nothing was ever done to resolve my issue. The only thing I didn't try was to take my issue to media.
These giant corporations do everything possible to squeeze any rights from consumers by making them sign these lengthy contracts. First of all a normal consumer does not have time and expertise to understand and negotiate these contracts drafted by expert lawyers on the roll of these companies. I think government and consumer right organizations should step in and prohibit certain clauses to be included in the contracts that strips consumer of their basis rights to go to court and get justice.
Liberals / Conservatives anyone listening.... Or everyone too busy in election tours!
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:08 AM EST
- Magdelane Stark from Toronto, Canada writes:
Sadly, decent corporate-citizen has become yet another oxymoron.
An INSIDER Edition subscriber
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:13 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:15 AM EST
- 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.
An INSIDER Edition subscriber
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:15 AM EST
- 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 Fido.ca.There 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:17 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:20 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:21 AM EST
- Joel B from Vancouver, Canada writes:
Congradulations to Ted Rogers, you finally realized that you needed to get this out of the papers.God forbid if the press actually did their job, reviewed your contracts, and held your company's feet to the fire over questionable business practices.
I am not a lawyer, but I have used them for years, and I do not think that one can surrender certain rights like legal recourse pursuant to a contract.Still it would be nice if the government forced this industry to reduce their contracts to one page and say five 12 pt font lines of conditions including the clause:
The provider will provide both service and a reasonable signal.
By the way the article said that Ted is looking after everything.Funny it is made to sound personal.His company probably is, you know the publicly traded one that he is employed by.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:21 AM EST
- 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!
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:25 AM EST
- Ian Fardoe from Toronto, Canada writes:
I'll second that "Bravo" to Ms. Drummond and her partner!
I have my own issues with Rogers and have experienced the heavy-handed manner in which 'some' of its employees deal with customers.They seem to believe, in my view anyway, that they may dictate to the customer in any way they feel appropriate without any concern for consequence.This is quite apparent when you try to speak with a supervisor and they simply refuse to allow you to do so. They won't speak with you. Another expample of the "take it or leave it" attitude.I pay for full service with company ---4 cellphones/internet - high speed/cable - full HD service. You can imagine that this costs real money.
Folks....the best way to get even is to cancel your services. I'm starting with internet, then cable and then my phones when 3 are no longer under the one-sided contract.
By the way, when you do cancel...they all of a sudden think you are the best thing since sliced bread!They apparently only then realize that there is a thing called COMPETITION!
An INSIDER Edition subscriber
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:26 AM EST
- a p from Toronto, Canada writes:
All cellphone companies do the same. They have the means to protect customers but they won't. We can't challenge them even if we could. Mobile Corporation bullies catch you with a necessity in a complicated contract and with no way out.
The only solution for many is shut up and pay to protect their credit history and pray that it doesn't happen again.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:30 AM EST
- Darryl Byrne from Toronto, Canada writes:
Having had the pleasure of dealing with Roger's billing department repeatedly for the same issue, I am glad to see that someone (after a ridiculously lengthy and involved process was able to get somewhere.
With such large ogliopolies running what are increasingly becoming essential services (cell phones), it's time to either allow/encourage more competitors into the market or conversely more tightly regulate the service providers to the consumer's interest.
At the bare minimum, an effective complaints process is required when a dispute arises between the consumer and provider preferably adjudicated by a third unbiased party (like an ombudsman at the CRTC for example).
For the amount of money I (and many other Canadians) pay for wireless service versus the customer service (incorrect bills, mysterious fees, unrequested additions/deletions of services), we as Canadians needs to stand up and demand better.
Why doesn't the politicians address these issues? I know that I would support a party that would its act together around our outdated and arcane tele-communications policies.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:30 AM EST
- Scott Spencer from Toronto, Canada writes:
Too many people are suprised at the end of the month with a huge cell phone bill.The cases I have heard are caused from being on the wrong plan rather than fraud, but the remedy is still the same;It would be reasonable to receive warning from the cell phone company either by suspending service or by other means of communication (phone, text, e-mail).Rogers is a telecommunications company and is on the leading edge of technology.Rogers certainly has the resources to find a cost effective way of informing their customers in real time.Why not use it to protect their customers?
Scott Spencer
Toronto, Ontario
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:37 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:39 AM EST
- marc whitham from Markham, Canada writes:
Congratulation to both you Ms. Drummond and you Mr. Gefen.I'm delighted to hear that Mr. Rogers has stepped into the fray to resolve your issue but even more, I'm delighted you have raised the level of this type of issue and will have a further opportunity at your upcoming meeting.
Regarding your last comments, "It shouldn't take a law professor and a technology journalist to make them behave like decent corporate citizens." It appears that it does in today's society.Perhaps that is the gift well educated people like yourselves can give the "average Joe" who does not have the ability or money to fight this type of thing.Your desire to fight back may have helped many people you will never meet.
Best wishes on your meeting.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:40 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:40 AM EST
- Riad Mohammed from Canada writes:
The article's last paragraph is the most poignant statement. I really hope this sets precedence in Contract Law for this sort of problem.
And if innocent people's phones are being cloned and used, then why are the telecom companies letting it go, if they have the means by which to stop it? Can they not set it up like a credit card, where red flags are waived and you receive a call/the card is cancelled? Seems like simple business sense to me. Perhaps Drummond, Geffen, Law Reform and I can run Rogers..!
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:43 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:46 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:51 AM EST
- Alan Davis from Leduc, Canada writes:
It,s good to see Rogers saw the light and yeilded to the little guy. Maybe part of the deal should be for Rogers' account reperesentatives to take customer service sensitivity training.
When
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 9:57 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 10:07 AM EST
- Ron Cook from Timmins, Canada writes:
Sir or Madam:
This is an excellent article, and appropriate, with regards to agreements that are signed by individuals thinking they are protected by the standard contract. Other types of agreements I would like to see be looked at are car deals (leasing), along with computer hardware and software packages. The average person has very little real knowledge of these areas.
Thank you for making this part of the news
RC
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 10:19 AM EST
- Matt Hartman from Calgary, Canada writes:
Rogers looked like a big, dumb, lumbering company on this issue.It's good to see Ted get involved on a personal level ... not that he had any choice.If the court of law didn't get him, the court of public opinion would have.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 10:21 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 10:21 AM EST
- Darren Mather from Vancouver, Canada writes: Shame on Ted Rogers. I will never use his phone company. Talk about negative advertizing!
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 10:21 AM EST
- 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
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 10:28 AM EST
- Mark Zaburs from Victoria, Canada writes:
It's typical that Rogers would resolve it, soon as it went to press,otherwise it would still be a battle, thanks for the power of the press to balance the shift of power between corporations & the public with a little dose of truth. I myself, was shut down by a late bill payment that cost me my livelihood for a year as all my ads were listed with one phone number, the cell company, Telus, refused to re-instate me after payment & even charged me for a breach of contract after they cancelled it.
I reckoned I spent over $10,000.00 in 3 years with them & was all paid up except for a $170.00 bill, I had been loyal to the end.
I learned a valuable lesson, use a pay as you go phone card if you really need a cell.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 10:29 AM EST
- kevin rose from Canada writes:
note to government, if you want to make a law that actually helps us than start treating cell carriers like loan sharks.
to the globe and mail, this kind of news is why i subscribe to your paper
even though your business oriented its the little guy whos buying, and lets not forget that an investor would be very interested to know how a company creates profit.
i think csis should do an in depth communications audit of rogers to make sure they are not profiting off of terrorism.
An INSIDER Edition subscriber
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 10:31 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 10:34 AM EST
- James Young from Brantford, Canada writes:
What about the other tens of thousand customers out there , who have contentiousissues with Rogers?
Ther is no doubt these sleasy practices by Rogers are wide-spread.
If a company has a wide customer base not in communication with each other all the company hasto do is satisfy the most vociferious, and continue with business as usual, particularly in Canada. Shut the complainer up ASP is the company mantra.
In the USA it is a little different due to class action suits on a continuency fee basis, with lots of lawyers unemployed..
Rogers is the focus in this discussion, but I suggest many other companies use the same parallel procedures. Bell is as guilty as many as are the Utility companies. Most of these companies have invoices that are for all intents and purposes unintelligable. On-line virus companies are similiar. It is impossible to contact these people when a problem occurs.
Stay on the line your call is important to us, or even worse charge $3.00 a minute to talk to somebody. You are put on hold for 15 or 20 minutes and then give up. Such is business in the modern age. Customer service with nobody in the company to supply the service is the norm. Often with the Governments in power trhey write their own contracts, and regulations. It is company policy is a term too often encountered.
Durgan.
Durgan
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 10:38 AM EST
- 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.
Whatever
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 10:41 AM EST
- Michael Long from Toronto, Canada writes:
Congratulations to Professor Drummond and Mr. Gefen on winning their battle against Rogers, and for the Globe for brining this to light.Its bad enough Rogers hasn't done enough to prevent their network being used for fraudulent and even terrorist activities (see Saturday's article), but to pass the cost of such activities onto their customers is outrageous.
When they have tea with Mr. Rogers (nice touch by the way!), they may want to suggest the following:
1. Monthly account limits (like on a debit card) that prevent usage over a specified dollar amount (e.g. default of $300 per month, higher amounts to be specified by the customer).
2. I suppose at least 80% of cell phone users only plan to place calls within North America. Accordingly, all new cell phone accounts should have a default for continental use only. Should customers want international usage, then they should need to contact the Rogers operator to trigger such (and this should require a password or pin #).
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 10:47 AM EST
- Chris Ash from Victoria, Canada writes:
Good for Ms. Drummond!It's nice to see this story has a promising ending.
Now, if only my group of former Rogers employees can win our class action suit against Mr. Rogers, I'll start believing in Santa again!
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 10:55 AM EST
- 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 www.longrangecordless.com.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 11:01 AM EST
- David Hillman from Calgary, Canada writes:
It's a refreshing change to see a corporate executive actually own up to the mistakes his/her company has made. But ask yourself if this hadn't become a potential PR nightmare for Rogers, do you really think this situation would have been resolved?
I would submit that short of exposure in the media Ms. Drummond would have been sent to collections and taken to court. The wording in Rogers contract and those of most cell phone companies are worded to cover the best interests of the company with the only consideration to the customer being use of the cell phone.
I hope that at some point there is a legal challenge on the validity of contracts that are designed solely for the protection of the corporation with little protection offered to the customer.
Good for you Ms. Drummond! It's too bad that it required such a concerted effort on your end to get Rogers attention.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 11:12 AM EST
- Glenn Jorgensen from Delta, Canada writes:
Agree, but still, the owner of the phone failed to notify of loss. Yes, they were away? but regardless, the customer/owner of the cell phone IS responsible for that phone and what happens to it. Why must a company, any company be responsible for customer negligance?
Clever though!
Dig up past problems, ongoing abuse issues, splash it around the media, blame the big bad company for what amounts to ones own fault and get off accounting for ones own actions.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 11:19 AM EST
- John Hinkley from Thornhill, ON, Canada writes:
Bravo!
It is nice to see the folks (I was going to say crooks) get caught.
The most important thing that everyone must remember is that corporate public relations starts at the top of the pyramid and filters down to the bottom.
Ted Rogers has never cared for his customers the way Ma Bell has over the years.
I know people that have had problems with Ma Bell as well but over all Bell has provided much better value than Rogers.
Rogers corporate philosphy has always been give the least service you can get away with at the lowest possible cost and if you lose a customer here or there who cares.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 11:31 AM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 11:31 AM EST
- Greg Macedo from Toronto, Canada writes:
Last year, my credit card # was fraudulently used to open up a Rogers mobile account.Rogers did end up closing the account and reversing my credit card charges, but I never got an answer on how the fraudster opened an account withonly 1 piece of ID (despite Rogers policy of requiring 3 pieces of ID to automatically charge a credit card).Apparently, one can open an account by simply providing a valid credit card number.Address validation? I guess not.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 11:55 AM EST
- Grace Yauza from Calgary, Canada writes:
telus does the same thing, they cancelled my long distance call carrier without letting me know. I have to pay sky high long distance call rate from Telus. "Telus workers on strike" and that is the excuse they gave me.
How do you like this kind of excuse?. It certainly pi.....me off.. In the mean time, Telus is reporting record profits!!!!
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 11:21 AM EST
- Victoria Horobin from Toronto, Canada writes:
I had my phone cloned during a trip last spring to the Bahamas, and Rogers security division called me immediately as they noticed the change in pattern, blocked the number, and credited my bill for all costs.I didn't even have to ask!So the giant corporation isn't all bad.
An INSIDER Edition subscriber
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 12:31 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 12:35 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 12:44 PM EST
- john stolarski from Canmore, Alberta, Canada writes:
Interesting to see that the Rogers contract had a clause in it that says you cannot sue them or get involved in a class action suit, against them.
Shows you how companies make it so easy for them to not be held accountable for poor service.
Good to see people fighting big corporations for what we consider normal customer concerns and winning.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 12:50 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 12:55 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 1:09 PM EST
- Jon Herman from Toronto, Canada writes:
I have been having a major problem getting warranty service fulfilled through Rogers.Since my power cable for my Treo 600 shorted out and died, I have talked to over 12 people at Rogers, and still have not been sent a replacement cable.I was sent a replacement Treo,but with no power cable.
Also, the reception I have been receiving from Rogers is nothing short of downright rude and insensitive.Rogers CSRs (and their supervisors as this experience has shown) have a very tweaked sense of customer service. They constantly shift reponsibility from one department to another, omit information as well as give customers incorrect or incomplete information.One would think that replacing a power cable from a product under warranty for a customer of almost a decade would be a no-brainer...maybe for Rogers, it is just asking for too much.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 1:14 PM EST
- Stan Graves from Fredericton, Canada writes: Do you know where your cell phone is?
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 1:37 PM EST
- 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.
postamble();
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 1:38 PM EST
- Howard Young from Ottawa, Canada writes:
Self regulation only works when there is a reasonable level of competition.There's minimal competition in the wireless industry because it is regulated by the CRTC.Since the industry is protected from competition the companies have less incentive to correct a problem when something goes wrong, so as a group, they just don't work as hard to keep you happy.
If a real pro-business mentality was taken towards wireless there would be more competitors and companies with poor service models would be under threat from companies that did serve their customers well.
It's not commerce that is helping to maintain this problem, it's government regulation limiting competion.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 1:53 PM EST
- Patrick Leckie from Toronto, Canada writes:
what fraud-detection software?pls.
wow, same thing happened to me in August, now Rogers tells me I'm responsible to pay a 4hr. call to Pakistan at over $500, when my phone was stolen. I reportedto the police and rogers less then 10 hrs later... No resolve yet. They have been nothing but torturous in dealing with, I never made international calls, and never made a call for more then 4 minutes, never mind 4 hours, just wonder if that software works, and if Ted will come for coffee with me too.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 1:57 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 2:24 PM EST
- Jonathan Dick from Toronto, Canada writes:
Isn't that just great of Rogers to cancel the charges after these two people have spent hundreds of hours fighting against something as ridiculous as this? What is the message here? Rogers will charge you if they can get away with it, and they will make it as hard as possible for you to get out of paying the charges, but if you publically embarass them and demonstrate in a national newspaper how they tried to rip you off, and how they continue to try to rip people off, then they will back down and hope the mess goes away.
If that is the way Rogers treats its customers, I'm going to do my utmost to avoid using any of their products. At the very least Rogers should:
1) Notify/shut down the account when the activity is especially strange.
2) Only charge the customer for the amounts they have to pay other Telcos, as opposed to making a hefty product on someone's misfortune.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 2:38 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 2:40 PM EST
- 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.
An INSIDER Edition subscriber
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 3:01 PM EST
- Sohail Toronto, Resident from Toronto, Canada, Canada writes:
So, Ted Rogers forgave $12,000 of wrongfully billed invoice. What is the big deal?Why couldn't any of the incompetent Managers and/or cheery Customer Service Reps. solve this problem?
When I worked at Rogers, I used common sense but it's so hard to find anyone with that specific sense in their customer service now.For Jon Herman, I would've sent the charger or credited him account with $25 so that he could purchase one himself.It seems that more and more Customer Service reps. are unwilling to help or empathize with the customer.No wonder many companies refuse to hire ex-employees from Rogers because they feel they are too "structured" in their thinking.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 3:08 PM EST
- Jeff Chaplin from Toronto, Canada writes:
It doesn't seem reasonable to me that Rogers has the right to tell you that you cannot sue them when grounds exist just because they put it in the contract - if that were true then every company could include a similar clause in every business transaction with a customer, e.g. in the fine print at the bottom of your receipt for a coffee from MacDonalds (then it's your own fault if you're scalded because it's too hot!).But not to digress... I just wanted to add my story.It's quite old but worth mentioning in this context.When converting a basement to a rentable apartment unit in a former house I owned I arranged for an extra cable outlet to be installed.The work was never done and shortly afterwards we sold the house.Then Rogers sent me a bill for the work.I asked the CSR to produce the signed Work Order - which they said they had to have in order to charge me.Did I ever get it?No way.What I got was a bill from a collection agency instead.Thanks very much.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 4:00 PM EST
- Matthew Baldwin from Canada writes:
I just need to add my HUGE THUMBS DOWN for Roger's Customer Service.I was actually peaved off enough I went through their Investor Relations department to vent.That guy was great.However, he forwarded the complaint to the individual who is supposed to manage the process and since then I've heard nothing....and still have these guys overbilling me monthly (charging me for data when I have a data plan on my Treo).Of note, this is after the first kid at the shop set the account up wrong in the first place so I didn't qualify for all the discounts (cost me a second trip back to the store).And then their mail-in rebate centre oly processed one-of-two rebates (had to call in and killed 30 minutes in that process).
In short, I find it offensive that they consider their customer service rep's time so much more valuable than mine that they feel I should talk to a computer and provide information redundantly in a process that takes a minimum of 20 minutes at which point I often get a clueless twit who then hangs up on me in their attempt to transfer me to someone who actually knows how to resolve my issue.
Absolutely brutal and I would not recommend them to anyone as the customer is by their actions their very LAST priority.
Matthew Baldwin - London, Ontario.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 4:33 PM EST
- 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.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 4:54 PM EST
- David M. from Kelowna, Canada writes:
Wha?? This is an election issue? Now it's going to become Stephen Harper's fault??
Uh, I've seen some woolly-headed ideas from time to time on these threads, but ya know, that's a real beaut.
- Posted Dec. 19, 2005 at 5:09 PM EST