Rogers and Me Part 2: When You Have A Monopoly I Guess You Don't Have to Tell Your Customers What They Are Paying For

After my original attempts to get Rogers to answer my questions via e-mail failed I posted my questions to Google Drive (originally Google Docs) and tweeted the location to them and finally got answers via Twitter, 140 characters at a time.

That brought me to the next stage of the decision making process, which was deciding between the Digital Plus and VIP packages. So that should be easy - go to the Rogers website and see just what the differences between the two packages are. Not so easy I discovered. I expected to find a listing and description of the Basic package, and then what Digital Plus adds, and then what VIP adds. But it does not work that way. They only list the full complement of channels for each package and you have to go through them yourself to determine just what additional channels you get with the each package and then you only have a list of names. So then I went looking on the Rogers web site to find descriptions of the channels they wanted me to pay to subscribe to, without success so, I tweeted @RogersHelps again, resulting in this exchange.

Richard W. Woodley ‏@the5thColumnist @RogersHelps is there a place on your website where I can find a DESCRIPTION of all the channels in the VIP package, not just list of names

Nicolas @ Rogers ‏@RogersNicolas @the5thColumnist Hi Richard, I'm afraid we don't have a description of each channel individually.

Richard W. Woodley ‏@the5thColumnist @RogersNicolas rather astounding that you can't provide customers with a description of what you're trying to sell to them @RogersHelps

So I did my own research and made my own list which I posted to Google Drive here and I am still considering my options. But it is rather astounding that they expect people to buy a package without knowing it's contents, and more so that they can get away with it. The power of a monopoly.

Rogers and Me: Father Corporation Knows Best in Mister Rogers Neighbourhood

I prefer to deal with companies using email because it allows me to carefully ask questions and carefully consider the answers before asking follow-up question, as well as providing a written record of the information received.

I was quite surprised to find that Rogers Communications, which considers itself to be the best Internet service in the country, does not provide a means for customers to communicate with them via e-mail.

I searched Rogers website looking for an e-mail address for customers to ask questions about upgrading our analog cable TV service to digital and could not find any. The only place that had any sort of form for submitting questions to get an email response was here - https://www.rogers.com/web/content/contactus - and the closest form was for for Cable Media Relations, hardly the place for customer information requests.

I then queried the @RogersHelps Twitter account and was told first that Rogers didn't answer customer questions by email and then a further response referred me back to the same place on the website so I submitted the questions with no answer after a week, and none expected.

I am aware that Rogers has telephone and live chat help available and I know some customers prefer that. However, as stated above, I prefer to use e-mail to deal with companies I do business with.

Perhaps I am being stubborn and should just trust that the big corporation knows best how I should communicate with them but I believe that companies should let their customers choose which way to communicate with them, as long as it is reasonable and normal, which of course email is, in fact being the norm with most companies. Twitter on the other hand may be trendy and an effective way for customers to get a corporations attention but it is not an effective medium for seriously asking and answering complex questions.

These are the questions we are trying to get an answer to from Rogers.

The first question is about the PVR purchase and rental options. We noticed a rent to own option of $15 a month for 36 months which was appealing because by renting we do not have to buy a PVR outright that only works with Rogers if we want to change TV providers but yet if we are happy with the service after 36 months we own the PVR and have no more rental payments. However we also noticed a $25 rental option without purchase after 36 months. Why would anyone opt to pay more to get less. My best guess is that the $15 rent to own option is really not a rent to own option but simply a financing option and we are committed to keep paying for 36 months no matter what. Can you tell us what the differences between the $25 rental forever option and the $15 rent to own after 36 months option are.

Oh, and does the $500 PVR come with the recommended HDMI cable, or is that extra.

We understand there is a $50 installation charge. Is it possible to do the install ourselves by picking up the necessary outlet signal splitter and digital boxes at one of your stores, or having them delivered to us.

Also is it possible to connect TVs to the additional outlets without a digital box and get the basic analog channels on it.

Also if it is possible can I indicate all this during the online ordering process.

So we are left considering our options as to whether to just do as we are told by Rogers, who obviously believes they, not their customers, knows best, or simply seek out a different Television Service Provider who has more respect for their customers.

Blog Action Day for the Environment

Today is Blog Action Day for the Environment.

One can only wonder in amazement why there are still Global Warming doubters in light of the international scientific consensus and the recent recognition by the Nobel Committee that Global Warming is a threat to international peace and security.

The press would like to maker everyone think that there are two somewhat equal opposing scientific views here. But, just as in reality there is only one scientific position on whether the earth is flat, on whether gravity exists and whether we evolved or were created, there is really only one scientific position on the existence and the major cause of Global Warming - man.

One can only speculate as to what the doubters motives are because the ironic thing about fighting Global Warming is that, even if for some strange region the virtual consensus of the world’s climate scientists was wrong and the marginal fringe was right, fighting Global Warming would still be good for the environment and the economy.

The doubters are becoming increasingly marginalized, as groups such as the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers support taking action on Global Warming.

Even capitalists are beginning to realize that without a planet there are no profits and that a waste-based economy is not sustainable in the long run.

There are profits to be made from increased development in the third world, but the planet simply cannot sustain development in the developing the world in the wasteful way it has been done in the developed world.

The developing world will have to develop differently than we have, and if we expect them to do that we have to change our habits and provide the technology to make that happen.

So what do we do to reduce the development gap in a sustainable way. The largest infrastructure factors are communications, transportation and housing.

In the communications area the developing countries are already skipping past the infrastructure heavy wired communications that we in the developed world grew up with and going straight to wireless technology (though wireless does have health concerns).

In transportation there is an opportunity for the developing world to avoid the North American reliance on the automobile by developing pedestrian and bicycle friendly cities and adopting a more European public transit focused approach to transportation.

In housing there is lots of room to make huge improvements in the quality of housing and water and sewage infrastructure without the excesses of North American society. Heating is the big energy eater in housing in the developed world. As most developing countries are in warm climates that is not a big factor. At least in the short term they may have to forgo the luxury of universal air conditioning.

As the developing world moves forward, we must also move forward. but in a different way than the past. The first thing we have to recognize that standard of living measured in the old fashioned economic way, how much we consume and waste per person, is not equivalent to quality of life. We can live much less extravagantly, particularly in terms of energy use, and increase our quality of life. Status, in terms of huge houses and automobiles that we do not need, will not buy us happiness.

North America can move towards less reliance on the automobile and more public transit, especially if we raise taxes on gasoline and put the funds into improved public transit. It has not destroyed European economies and it will not destroy North American economies.

In housing we can move from extravagance to comfort in our housing choices. The first thing we can do is remove the artificial tax incentives, such as capital gains tax exemptions on residences regardless of size or value, that encourage people to own bigger houses than they need.

As individuals we can start with our personal choices. Even simple things like changing light bulbs and buying energy efficient appliances, when done by increasingly large numbers of people can have a very significant cumulative effect. They also have an important indirect effect, because when we make these kinds of decisions we are also telling government and industry what our values and priorities are.

There are huge and sustainable profits to be made in developing sustainable products and technologies. Profits made from destroying the planet have an inevitable short future.

We are beginning to realize that we can change our way of living to a more sustainable one and increase our quality of life.

A green future is a long future.