Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Rogers to Buy Fido
twitch sigil
Well, fuck. That kind of defeats the purpose of buying cell phone service from Fido as an attractive alternative to the customer-service hell that is Rogers or Telus, now doesn't it?

News story here.

My view on this is neatly represented in another blog post that I found searching for news on this after hearing it on the radio this morning.

Essentially, I bought service from Microcell a.k.a. Fido Canada because their customer service, packages, pricing, and general policies are favourable to me, the consumer. I didn't buy service with Telus or Rogers for the same reasons: their customer service is terrible, packages are draconian and favour the house, their pricing is uncompetitive (which is an important point to consider with the news of a takeover), and their company policies toward their customers seem to be that we are fodder for their profit machines.

Fido, on the other hand, gave me what I wanted and more, and promptly got the hell out of my way.

If this goes through, I humbly apologise to everyone to whom I've recommended Fido as a provider. People wonder why I damn to hell the free market system and the stock market that is its pornographic poster-child, and I say that this is just one of the reasons why.

  • 1

I second your sentiment. Completely.



Every time I have a cell phone provider I like, they get bought out by some huge faceless moronic incompetent corporation (I still haven't gotten over the loss of Clearnet). I switch to Fido two weeks ago, and what happens?! Aaargh!

OTOH I'm pretty freaking glad, in retrospect, that I'm in on a contract. Whoever buys them -- even if it's fucking Telus or fucking Rogers (they both have earned that title, as far as I'm concerned) -- will have to honour that and not fuck with my rate plan.

And here I was trying to curtail my cursing!! :)

I'm starting to think that a contract might be a good thing, if I'm to keep my cell phone with Fido.

I would rather think it is the over-regulation of the communications business that keeps the small players from competing with the large players and their government-enforced pseudo-monopolies.

The free market would ensure good customer service or cheaper service rates, or both, if left to it's own devices.

Free markets don't prevent monopolies any more or less than regulated ones do, just differently. There is good reason for the Sherman Act existing in the States.

In any case, they're both under-regulating (allowing such mergers to happen to the detriment of Us, the People who form Government) and over-regulating and propagating the status quo of large monopolies.

This says to me that they are regulating it wrong, not necessarily too much. (It may be be too much, it may be too little, but it can't be seen until the regulation is smart first.) People often forget that along with the more-less axis of regulation, there is the poor-well axis, too. Including myself, as I revealed in my off-the-cuff remark above. :)

I still disagree with a large set of the implications of the stock market and free markets, though.

  • 1