Rogers Dream fiasco and Canada reasonable carrier provisions: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Rogers Dream fiasco and Canada reasonable carrier provisions (view source)

Revision as of 15:38, 8 February 2010

21 bytes added ,  8 February 2010
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
[http://groups.google.com/group/android-users-in-canada/browse_thread/thread/d10d265664aa80d9# original post]
{{SH_Triple|Janet Lumb|Rdf:type|Person}}
 
{{SH_Add|2015|20100616044018|User:24.69.105.250}}{{SH_Obsolete|0}}{{SH_Delete|2897|20100618222312|User:David Mason}}
 
I'm afraid even as a consumer advocate I don't find your arguments to
Rogers very convincing.
 
As I said to you in our other conversation, in order to be successful,
there has to be a very specific, reasonable request everyone will get
behind.
 
Otherwise, people cannot be bothered, as typified in
http://groups.google.com/group/android-users-in-canada/browse_thread/...,
their expectations from corporations are very low, or it "works for
them" (after substantial inconvenience, see Y's response). This
defeats any ability to make noise to get attention, to organize behind
reasonable demands than most consumers will agree to.
 
If I were to write a reasonable charter for mobile providers, it would
look like this:
 
1. The consumer is paying for a certain amount of bandwidth and voice
usage per month, they can use it however they want with whatever
devices they want, as long as they are not disrupting the network.
 
2. If the carrier is offering extended contracts, the user should have
reasonably priced options if their device is lost, stolen or damaged,
or it proves inappropriate for any reason. An upfront charge with
replacement devices at a pro-rated replacement cost is reasonable.
 
3. Everyone's dealings with the company should be the same, based on
clear rules, we should not be hearing about exceptional offers to
individuals when we are treated in a substandard way, after being
exasperated by inconsistent and apathetic service.
 
There has clearly been some trickery on Rogers' part. We are all here
primarily because we respond to ideas of an alternative, Linux/open
source based operating system which we can understand, participate in
the community in a meaningful way, build apps for and work with the
low level operating system. Rogers did claim the Android would be an
"open," "revolution" phone. They created a campaign around these ideas
and specifically the Android devices. to entrap persons such as
ourselves who would respond to these ideas. When they realized the
Dream they had sold would not be upgradeable, they made an offer to
upgrade Dream users to the Magic, specifically stating this was the
reason. There was no mention of the 911 problem, and it's noteworthy
that the 911 problem was fixed months before in community provided
distributions of Android. The upgrade offer was cancelled prematurely,
and after a period of time we were told the upgrade was due to the 911
problem, and now that it had been fixed the upgrade would no longer be
available. Android users who didn't want to lose data and eventually
voice access were forced to "upgrade" their devices to a distribution
that doesn't support community upgrading.
 
Clearly, there are mistakes and dishonesty on Rogers' part here.
Putting forward a personal grab bag of complaints may get you out of your
contract, but you'll be right back where you started in two months.
Having a clear, organized  statement of requests is likely to be more
effective.
 
Mobile devices are the future of the Internet, just like the "real"
Internet it needs to be more than a channel to keep corporations alive
and feed us commercials. Rogers is already making very good profits,
they should be more than happy with charging $1200 a year to provide
basic service and let us run whatever device we want.
 
Some people will say they can already run any third party device on
the Rogers network, but they're operating in a grey zone, until this
is clarified we can be forced to buy a Rogers provided device whether
we want it or not, and issues such as billing, access and support will
always be in question.
 
Clarifying that we can run any device on the Rogers network will
result in a a clear, open market for devices, leading to greater
consumer confidence and participation, more choice with easier to
upgrade devices, and better prices - like computers using "regular"
Internet.
 
[[Category:Advocacy]]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.zooid.org/w/Special:MobileDiff/2929"

Navigation menu