I hate the term ‘system access fee’. It sounds so official. The cellular industry wants consumers to think that it is a government mandated charge. ‘System access fee’ sounds better than ‘profit fee’ or ‘our way to increase prices even though you have a 3-year contract fee’. But that is all it is.
I say, if you want to raise prices – do it. It’s your business. Hiding behind an add-on like ‘system access fees’ is just plain misleading. It’s unfair and inappropriate to raise prices on consumers who have a contract.
The ability to raise the ‘system access fee’ from $6.95 to $8.95 is more evidence of what the investment industry calls ‘rational competition’ in Canada – the avoidance of a price war. Good for investors, lousy for consumers.
It isn’t clear that wireless number portability (coming in March 2007) is going to bring pricing benefits to consumers. The signals being sent from the carriers seems to trending prices upwards. One carrier is raising domestic long distance rates to an astounding 30 cents per minute plus air time (we note that their cost is around a penny). Now this other carrier is signalling higher system access fees.
If a carrier raises the system access fee for people under contract, what was the value for the consumer of the agreement itself?
Postscript: [8:20am]
A month ago, the CRTC issued its Consumer Bill of Rights decision. That Decision doesn’t help in the case of System Access Fees for two reasons: first, wireless carriers are not covered – the Bill of Rights applies to ILECs only; second, there is nothing that prohibits such add-on charges.
Perhaps another reason why the Telecom Policy Review Panel called for the establishment of a body with a greater focus on consumer issues.