By Denis Carmel
OTTAWA – Quebecor has asked the CRTC and the Competition Bureau to conduct an inquiry into whether the three largest wireless providers, Bell, Telus and Rogers, are violating the Wireless Code by how they price devices as well as the charges incurred when consumers want to terminate their contract.
Through its own investigation, Vidéotron says in a letter to the CRTC it has collected the prices of various wireless devices on the websites of the Big Three and the conditions attached to them. The conclusion is clear, says the Quebec company. Compared to the prices offered by manufacturers, Bell, Rogers, and Telus charge prices significantly higher, which is in violation of section G.2.ii.b of the Code, which reads, “The retail price of the device is the lesser of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price or the price set for the device when it is purchased from the service provider without a contract.”
For example, Québecor looked at the Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G 128 Go from Samsung, which on March 6 was being offered by Samsung at $1649.99, while Bell and Rogers offer it at $2050 and Telus was retailing it at $1960, respectively $400, and $310 above the Samsung’s retail price. The company went on to provide such price discrepancies for 10 additional handsets.
(Editor’s note: We fixed an error with one of the prices in the above paragraph. Samsung is indeed offering the phone at $1649.99, not $649.99. Cartt.ca regrets the error.)
Videotron’s owner further also argues that the rebates then offered to consumers are misleading, since they are based on their inflated retail prices and also impact the penalties that are charged if the customer wants to terminate the contract. The penalties found on the websites of the Big Three also indicate violations of the Code relating to G.2.i.a: “The early cancellation fee must not exceed the value of the device subsidy.”
This behaviour, besides being contrary to the Code, also places undue pressure on consumers when they want to change providers and impacts competition, which therefore affects Québecor.
A Québecor spokesperson wrote to Cartt.ca that “All our prices are the suggested selling prices from the manufacturers.”
Because this request is ostensibly made under Section 48 of the Telecommunications Act as opposed to a Part 1 application, the Commission will have the opportunity to look deeper into the issue instead of being limited to the facts alleged by Québecor. The CRTC will determine future steps and a timeline.
