Toronto Star article on 'system access fees'

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Amur_ - 05 Feb 2005 19:55 GMT

Today's Toronto Star (February 5th) has an article on the front page
of the Business section (D1) about a court order that the federal
Competition Bureau has slapped on Bell Mobility for misrepresenting the
'system access fee' as being a government-imposed charge.

It isn't. The cell companies pocket 100% of the fee, which the
article says adds up to nearly a billion extra dollars in revenue
annually amongst the the major carriers.

Neither Telus nor Robbers are commenting on whether they've also
received such court orders.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&inifile=f
uturetense.ini;futuretense_xcel.ini&c=Page&cid=968350072197&pubid=968163964505

You have to be a subscriber to view the article...

Note that the court order alleges that the companies have to change
the way they represent the fee to customers, not remove it.

Reply to this Message

JF Mezei - 05 Feb 2005 20:45 GMT

> Note that the court order alleges that the companies have to change
> the way they represent the fee to customers, not remove it.

Good. I've always felt it very dishonest for someone to advertise a $20
monthly plan that was really $26.95 because there was no way to escape
the 6.95 extorsion fee.

(A bit like Air Canada advertising a $100 fare to New York, but once you
add all the extra fees, it comes out to $400).

Reply to this Message

R-Guy - 07 Feb 2005 09:03 GMT

Actually it says "a portion of the fee goes toward each company's licensing
and regulatory costs"

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_T
ype1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1107558612712

<snip>

> The cell companies pocket 100% of the fee, which the
> article says adds up to nearly a billion extra dollars in revenue
> annually amongst the the major carriers.

<snip>

Reply to this Message

DevilsPGD - 07 Feb 2005 09:48 GMT

Sure, and a portion goes to the power bill, a portion goes to paying for
donuts at shareholders meetings -- The point is that it goes directly
into the cellco's operating budget whereas the marketing side of things
definitely implies that it's a gov't imposed tax/fee.

>Actually it says "a portion of the fee goes toward each company's licensing
>and regulatory costs"
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> annually amongst the the major carriers.
><snip>

Signature

"I think women and sea men don't mix"
-- Smithers, Simpsons

Reply to this Message

Joseph - 07 Feb 2005 17:58 GMT

>Actually it says "a portion of the fee goes toward each company's licensing
>and regulatory costs"

Which is part of doing business!

They also have to pay for electricity, pay employees, pay for pencils,
pens and toilet paper and pay rent on land where their towers are
placed yet you don't see a separate fee for those items now do you?

>http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_T
ype1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1107558612712
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> annually amongst the the major carriers.
><snip>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Reply to this Message

Brendan McCullough - 08 Feb 2005 18:24 GMT

>>Actually it says "a portion of the fee goes toward each company's licensing
>>and regulatory costs"
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>

Remember the history of this fee. Originally we paid Industry Canada an
annual licensing fee of $48. When the cellphone craze started to take
off, IC realized that it would be easier to charge the carriers $48 per
subscriber and not have to bill each one individually. I don't know how
much IC bills the carriers now, is it $83.40 ($6.95 x 12 months)?

Brendan

Reply to this Message

Cdn - 19 Feb 2005 08:20 GMT

> Today's Toronto Star (February 5th) has an article on the front page
> of the Business section (D1) about a court order that the federal
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Neither Telus nor Robbers are commenting on whether they've also
> received such court orders.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&inifi
le=futuretense.ini;futuretense_xcel.ini&c=Page&cid=968350072197&pubid=968163
964505

> You have to be a subscriber to view the article...
>
> Note that the court order alleges that the companies have to change
> the way they represent the fee to customers, not remove it.

Maybe the $6.95 is to protect the cell towers from terrorists that can't
even pronounce Canada, much less find it. A lot like that wonderful extra
fee at the airport which ensures nobody can carry nail clippers on a flight
from Kelowna to Prince George.

Reply to this Message