Toronto Star article on 'system access fees'

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

Amur_ wrote:
> 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).

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

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...

<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>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

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.


In message <U9GNd.309353$6l.131300@pd7tw2no> "R-Guy"
<ron-20040915@mcleodnet.com> wrote:

>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...
>
><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>
>


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

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:03:48 GMT, "R-Guy" <ron-20040915@mcleodnet.com>
wrote:

>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...
>
><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>
>

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

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

Joseph wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:03:48 GMT, "R-Guy" <ron-20040915@mcleodnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>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...
>>
>><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>
>>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>

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

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.fido (More info?)

"Amur_" <amur_@nospam.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:nx9Nd.24368$Ck1.2058717@news20.bellglobal.com...
> 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...
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.