Torontoist: No Fees!* (*Fees May Apply)

pepe

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:09:17 -0500

great post! i'm an ex-torontist living in Van and it's the same BS here. ICBC for instance - anyone who led you to belive gov't run insurance equals lower rates LIED, try equals doubled rates. recently i moved 1km down the road to a new apartment, and BC Hydro slapped me with a $10 close account fee, and then a $10 open new account fee because apparently you need a whole new account when you move. i'd like to write more complaints but i'm currently typing under candlelight, with a dying laptop battery, evading the police for driving without insurance.

Kristy888

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:46:33 -0500

www.CellPlanDepot.com is a meeting place for people looking to get out of their cell phone contract "Plan Droppers" and those looking to takeover a contract "Plan Seekers". This service adds value to cell phone subscribers as it satisfies their need to break a contract and avoid the steep early termination fee. Those who takeover a plan will receive numerous incentives such as cash, free cell phones, accessories, and avoid activations fees through the simple transfer process. Those getting out of their plan avoid the early termination fees and all of the future monthly payments for that contract. It is a win-win process as both Plan Seekers and Plan Droppers save money through this innovative service. We hope you have found this information useful.

brokenengine

Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:41:17 -0500

Rogers cancellation fee is a maximum of $400, less than anyone else.

fearinglife

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:28:01 -0500

The worst is the cancellation fees....could go up to $720 for a 3-year cell phone contract. cellClients.com came around at the right time. They help you forego cell phone contract cancellation/ activation fees by the cell phone contract ownership exchange concept.

brokenengine

Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:13:12 -0500

I dunno, I know during the initial campaign, I didn't return a movie for, like, 2 weeks, and wasn't charged anything. It's only recently they've told me that there are fees for returning a one day rental back late. Although, ALL the chains had the "restocking fee" if you kept it for a month. We bought "The Transporter 2" for just such a reason. So, as you can assume, we learned our lesson. Because having guests know that you own The Transporter 2 is enough of a detriment in itself.

Marc Lostracco

Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:26:19 -0500

I agree that there should be late fees and that it's unfair to other customers. The point was that after a muti-million-dollar "No Late Fees" campaign (where there possibly were technically still late fees), they very quietly reinstated the late fees.

brokenengine

Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:19:01 -0500

Just FYI: RE: Rogers Video Late Fees: As far as I know, i t only applies to one day rentals, ie BRAND NEW rentals. Since the demand for these titles are much higher than older titles, people hanging on to them for 3 weeks at a time is detrimental to business. Hence, Late fee. I don't get what the complaint is about late fees. Dude, you rented a movie and they told you when to bring it back. You don't bring it back = late fee. Where's the disconnect?

andrewpmk

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:09:47 -0500

It sounds like the government needs to outlaw hidden fees. All fees (and tax, too) should be included, by law, in the advertised price. And you forgot to mention the airline industry, which is by far the worst offender in this regard.

tyrannosaurus_rek

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:20:43 -0500

Companies don't pay for anything; we do. If the government charges them some amount for whatever reason, it ends up on our monthly bills. Anyway, I'm hopeful that the opening of spectrum to competitors will mean a price war between the big guys, but something tells me we're more likely to get something that resembles price fixing right across the board...

Marc Lostracco

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:46:32 -0500

If I remember correctly, the telcos originally rolled-down the licensing costs to the consumers in the form of a $50 initial charge when setting up the account, as well as a precursor to the monthly system access fee in the mid-to-late 1990s.

roseparade

Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:35:24 -0500

I'm not defending the telcos here, but the following is a common misconception: "[Rogers] possibly forgets that his company didn't have to pay for access to the spectrum at all when they entered the market." When Bell, Rogers and Telus were granted spectrum in 1984 and 1995, it is true that there was no upfront cost, but there were licensing fees. This means it was relatively very cheap, since there was no auction-like process to determine true value, but the companies still had to pay.