« Previous Post
Next Post »

More Rogers iPhone Pricing News - Sneaky Details in the Fine Print

July 1, 2008 at 07:27 | Print This Post Print This Post

Jevon posts on the iPhone’s ridiculous break fee: “Well, we’ve all been complaining that Rogers’ pricing hasn’t changed much with their new iPhone plans, but now I have proof that they have changed. Instead of a smaller fee like 200$ to break up, Rogers now locks you in for 220$ a MONTH, or $1100, whichever is more.” Yes, that’s right - $1100. My initially mild concern, which only recently mutated to alarm, has now flowered into something bordering on full-blown contempt. Update: as I now read the terms, it strikes me that this could actually be worse than even Jevon suggests. But they’re poorly drafted. I’ll try to parse them later today.


RSS Feed

4 Responses to “More Rogers iPhone Pricing News - Sneaky Details in the Fine Print”


  1. Josh
    July 1st, 2008 at 09:34

    You think they would be avoiding those ambiguously placed commas by now…


  2. mike
    July 1st, 2008 at 11:26

    The clause actually reads (in full)

    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.


  3. Rob Hyndman (321 comments.)
    July 1st, 2008 at 12:14

    So many questions. Eg, if you only have two weeks left in your term, you’ve been a customer for at least 35 months and two weeks. If so, how could $1100 then be a reasonable termination fee? That’s simply grotesquely, nose-in-the-trough greedy.

    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.


  4. Rob Hyndman (321 comments.)
    July 3rd, 2008 at 03:04

    As I suspected - the draft has been corrected. Jevon has the details.