Among the top sources of hits on my blog over the holidays so far? The search terms “System”, “Access”, “Fees”.
The good news is that a lot of new people bought phones over the holidays. The bad news is that this search expression implies that users still aren’t clear or aren’t happy about these fees.
My position? I hate system access fees, as regular readers are aware, but don’t interpret that to mean that I oppose the fees. Huh? What does that mean, you ask?
I don’t think wireless carriers should be price regulated. In fact, I can even support carriers charging whatever the market can bear. The CRTC has determined, correctly, that wireless services are sufficiently competitive that price regulation is not necessary.
So what is the issue?
To me, it is a matter of fairness. I just think that the industry misleads consumers about the system access fees and my biggest concern is that carriers use the system access fee to change prices in the middle of a contract period.
No matter what the carriers say, system access fees are just another source of revenue. Let’s be clear: the system access fee has absolutely nothing to do with what the carriers say it is for. By the way, only Rogers explicitly clarifies on its website that the charge is not a “government charge”, as many people believe, including many of the sales agents and representatives for all of the carriers.
Bell says:
System Access Fee: The fee payable by you to cover the costs associated with operating and maintaining the Bell Mobility network, including costs for ongoing maintenance, new equipment installations and technology upgrades.
Telus says:
The System Access Fee covers a number of costs, including: spectrum acquisition and licensing charges, contribution charges to help subsidize residential telephone service in rural and remote areas, costs associated with area code changes, invoicing requirements for special needs clients, relay services (TDD) and related costs. The remainder, if any, goes towards the costs of operating TELUS Mobility’s national wireless networks, including new equipment and installations, ongoing maintenance and technology upgrades.
Rogers says:
The system access fee is charged to help cover the costs associated with the ongoing operation, maintenance and upgrading of the wireless network. The fee is not required by nor collected for the federal government or any of its agencies.
What this is saying is that the system access fee is just another way to recover the costs of doing business, the costs of goods sold. If I sign a contract for snow removal for the winter, my guy doesn’t get to raise the rate in the middle of January and add an extra fee to cover the cost of repairs or a new pick-up truck.
What can the carriers do about system access fees to make them more fair and thereby more palatable?
Either protect customers under contract from system access fee rate hikes or release them from their contractual obligations. That would be fair. That would make system access fees acceptable. When a customer signs up to a 3-year contract deal but finds out that a substantial part of their monthly fee has no price protection and can be changed on a whim, something is seriously wrong.
This is where governments should step in if the carriers won’t clean up their act on their own. It is a matter of consumer protection.
How about a New Year’s resolution from various players in the wireless industry to reform your ways? I hear there is a new sheriff coming to town.
