Also, as you suggest, Mike - what sense does the “400″ make? 400 months is absurd. $400 is illogical.

Also, why is the first sub-clause numbered (ii), and the second (iii), and why define it “EECF” when it describes the “Early Cancellation Fee”, and then why use the term “ECF”? ;)

Also, if the termination fee is supposed to reimburse Rogers for a loss, why isn’t this tied (on a declining over time basis) to the phone subsidy? I can understand a minimum term requirement as a way of compensating the operator for the phone subsidy, but imposing a long term enforced by a penalty that is not rationally related to the subsidy compensates Rogers for the loss of expected income over term - something many would think is an inappropriate use of a termination fee in a consumer context.

Perhaps I’m so jaded now that I simply can’t read this at it was intended to be read. But this makes no sense to me. My best guess is a first (and sloppy) draft, inadvertently made available to the public.

The ECF is the greater of (ii) $1100 or (iii) $220 per month remaining in the service agreement, to a maximum of 400 (plus applicable taxes),

- first of all, its the greater of $1100 and $220 per month. If you terminate with 2 weeks to go in your term, ECF is $1100. If 35 month to go, ECF is $7700

- but the maximum is 400. Is that months or dollars? If its dollars, then the minimum of $1100 is meaningless. If its months, 33 years is… a long time.