Share:

Bell Wins Subscribers War vs Rogers, Telus During $60/10GB Holiday Promo

Share:

Remember the feeding frenzy over the $60/10GB plan offered by Rogers, Telus and Bell (and their flanker brands Fido, Koodo and Virgin), during the holidays in December?

Well now that the Big 3 have announced their fourth quarter earnings, Bell has emerged as the victor over its rivals, nabbing more subscribers than Telus and Rogers, according to the Financial Post:

Bell added 175,204 wireless subscribers on contract in the three months ended Dec. 31, up 56 per cent from the same period in 2016, the company said Thursday. Telus Corp. said it added 121,000 wireless customers in the same period, up 39 per cent for its strongest results in five years. Rogers Communications Inc. added only 72,000 customers.

Bell had the best wireless gains in 15 years, while Telus in five, while gains by Rogers were minimal, due to what the company blamed on a ‘computer glitch’ during the promo.

Some analysts questioned how this low-cost pricing strategy would affect customers and what they expect pricing to be in the future. There are concerns matching low prices of Shaw’s Freedom Mobile could impact future revenue growth of the ‘Big 3’.

“Why would incumbent wireless providers re-price their products to a level that makes it more clear to more people that they’re overpriced compared to new entrant,” said Desjardins analyst Maher Yaghi, speaking to Telus executives on a conference call.

It’s true—after seeing the $60/10GB promo plan, any other wireless ‘promo’ offered by Rogers, Telus and Bell doesn’t compare. Will we ever see the $60/10GB plan return? It still remains in the systems of the Big 3, so there’s a chance it may emerge sometime again in the future.

Share:

  • Surveillance

    Take today’s promos offered by the flankers. Not even worth a sniff!

  • Joe

    Pricing has always been artificially inflated in Canada. The Big 3 are a monopoly. They match each other’s prices. This is a situation where we need “Big Government” i.e. the CRTC to step in and protect consumers. We can’t sit around waiting for Shaw to help us.

  • FragilityG4

    What can the government do to break up the oligopoly that they haven’t tried already? Consumers is the answer. Everyone flock to one carrier and watch how prices drop at the other two.

  • KonstantinRD

    Here is a funny story related to this. I was getting unhappy with Fido after being over 12 years with them. I was on Loyalty BYOD $60/6GB and as soon as I’ve heard about $60/10GB plan offered by others I talked to CS. They said it’s for new customers only and I didn’t qualify and no loyalty plan goes better than what I had at that time.
    Once they switched their tune to allowing anyone to get $60/10GB I decided to switch to Koodo just to show my dissatisfaction. I switched my two lines to Koodo and life moved on.
    I still had iPad data only plan with Fido but wasn’t using it much. Now with 10GB I can just tether iPad to iPhone.
    When I was canceling the rep asked why did I switch my other two lines. I explained and shared what I’m paying now. she said she would look into what she can do for me.
    A few minutes later she says that she can pull a loyalty BYOD plan for $70/10GB and asked if I’m interested.
    I bursted out laughing.
    They want me to switch back from Koodo and pay $10 more for what I have there.

    I don’t think you can explain this by a computer glitch.

    So happy to be done with Rogers owned Fido. I used to be a fan of Fido back in its independent day but their plans and attitude slowly degraded.

    I’m not saying Telus/Koodo is better but at least it’s different and new to me 🙂

  • Joe

    No offence dude, but unless consumers develop a hive mind, that’s never going to happen. The CRTC could easily step in and prevent them from price fixing. The only reason they don’t is because cell phone companies have more power than we do.

  • FragilityG4

    You’ve proven my point. How can the CRTC step in and stop price fixing? What could they do? If you mandate a certain price structure than you affectively squash free enterprise, the foundations of capitalism.

  • raslucas

    The government could mandate that pricing plans MUST be clearly displayed on their websites (no hidden promos) and plans must be valid for a certain amount of time, like 3 or 6 months.

    That was it would actually be a fine to offer retention plans.

  • raslucas

    Perhaps they must publish the plans at beginning of quarter. So there’s actually a fixed date so update plans.

  • FragilityG4

    And that is different from how it is now how? This will stop price fixing how? That would just be government mandated price fixing.

  • raslucas

    The companies can set their prices to whatever they want. It opens the opportunity for any of the companies, including Freedom, to undercut the competition and preserve that advantage for at least three months.

    The next quarter the others would try to lower as a result, and that price would then be preserved for at least three months.

    At the moment a single incumbent makes a change and then a few days later the other companies make the same changes. , under my system, they wouldn’t be able to “respond” to prove changes, because they are blind to each other and must make the price changes on the same day.

    It would cause a situation where they cannot collude, because doing so would provide evidence that they are indeed colluding, as that is the only way their price plans could change at the same time.

  • FragilityG4

    So your system is based on the belief that they wouldn’t collude one quarter at a time?

  • raslucas

    It would be impossible to announce the same price plans without colluding, therefore incriminating themselves. Right now one company can change something and then the others do a few days later… so they are “reactive” changes.

    Doing this would remove this ability. So no company would dare raise a fee, because if any of the other guys were to not raise it by the date, they’d be stuck at a competive disadvantage for three months. Affecting sales significantly.

  • FragilityG4

    But again you are assuming; assuming they don’t discuss things together— assuming they wouldn’t discuss things ahead of your quarterly price set. Bell and Rogers have fifty percent stakes in MLSE, so we know they’re in the same room often. Not to mention setting price standards and legislating when someone can change pricing is completely undemocratic.

  • raslucas

    I’m actually not, I’m counting on it. The only difference is that because setting identical pricing would be evidence that they are colluding, it will get the attention of the public and the government again and they’ll be fined for anti-trust issues.

  • FragilityG4

    Antitrust pertains to one company not multiple. There’s no president for what you purpose and that’s because of the anti democratic position it entails. It’s a nice idea but it would never come to fruition.

  • Tim

    I’d rather get shot in the face than be a customer of Bell Canada.

Deals