I recently paid 15.00 plan for US calling. I did not realize that I could not call Canada (home) on this plan. I have now been charged Roaming. On hold for 6 hours and another 3 hours to try and get a solution for charges to be waived as it was an honest mistake.
FIDO will not do anything!!
Father in law had same plan with Rogers and Rogers waived all charges!
Will never use Fido again.
If you go to Part E: Billing and then refer to the first section, Fido must notify you when you're roaming and clearly inform you what the roaming charges will be. If they didn't do that, then you have a grievance with the CRTC.
Incidentally, it appears that I also have a grievance with the CRTC because Fido did not clearly disclose the per-message rate to the US when I switched plans.
I hope that helps and good luck!
Sorry to hear that you're under the impression that we do not notify our customers. We can assure you that we're compliant with the CRTC ruling and that your notifications will come in many forms (email, SMS, bill, etc.).
You can also find the details of our roaming features online on our website. It's available publicly for anyone who wished to confirm and to be clearly informed of what the roaming charges will be. I'll link the page here for reference, there's also an FAQ section
Hope this helps!
I understand you said it was a mistake but you did use the service so the charges would be valid and you should know the features of your plan.
While Rogers does own Fido they are still two different companies and if Rogers or even Fido does something for someone else it does not mean you get the same. when it comes to something like this and if they do waive a valid charge it would be a courtesy and at the agent's discretion.
Although I'm sympathetic that you're a volunteer and not an employee, I sympathise with @Sherri123. Fido is not upfront about its pay-per-use services. Yes, those are buried in the form service agreement, but I keep finding that I discover "premium features" the hard way.
Case-in-point, I last week downgraded from a talk&text plan to a basic plan to save $5/mo and get another GB of data a month (ironic, right?). The new plan agreement said I get unlimited talk and text in Canada, 3GB data, voicemail, etc., etc. However, I didn't connect that texts to the US, which were previously unlimited, were now pay-per-text. I discovered this, and stopped texting immediately, when I reviewed my monthly usage on your portal. I'm not even sure what I'll be charged as the rates are buried in the fine print of the terms of service which are written for all plans, not just mine.
Now, Fido could have put in my plan description "Unlimited text messages in Canada; US text messages 45¢/ea (or whatever the rate is, i'm not sure)" But then I wouldn't have run up $30 worth of text messages that Fido will spring on my next bill.
It's basically deception through obfuscation, which I appreciate is legal in most provinces, but still bad customer service. So congratulations, Fido, you got an extra $30 out of me this month, but I'll recover it eventually and certainly be a lot more willing to jump ship if we ever get competition in Canada.
Happy New Year,
I also sympathise with the OP, however, not everything is buried away. That said, people really should verify what usage would incur additional charges rather make assumptions.
Take your case. Both the Data, Talk & Text and Talk & Text plans include Unlimited Canada-wide and international text, picture and video messages sent from Canada as a part of their plan features. In contrast, these are the plan features for the Basic plans:
~taken from here.
No where in those features does it mention outgoing text messages are included. You might consider verifying whether any outgoing text messages are included with those plans.
I understand some information is necessarily in the fine print. They can't possibly include everything in the large print. Not everyone would need to send text messages abroad. Including the pay-per-use rates for messages sent to International numbers would take up space and not apply to everyone.
Hope this helps 😀
We'll have to agree to disagree, as we have very different standards of what constitute "ethical business practices." In my line of work, I'd feel very greasy if I said to a client "I charge $X an hour for work, the details of other costs and fees are in this agreement," and then stuck them with a $2 surcharge for every email that they sent me/and $5 surcharge for phone calls, and then only tell them when I sent them the final bill for my services and said "Well you should have read the agreement. I can't possibly tell you everything I charge for upfront." Maybe you're OK with that. I'm not.
I also think this MVP programme is also highly unethical and exploitive. You're doing the painstaking work of a customer service rep without a proper salary or benefits - just a discount on your plan that probaby, per hour, works out to far less than minimum wage. It also raises problematic tax liability issues for you, which I'm sure Fido hasn't disclosed to you and, like with their surcharges, expect you to do your own research on. And if you're fine with having that kind of relationship with Fido, I say that's very kind of you. I just see them exploiting your good nature.
I'm sorry, but your analogy is once again completely different. Fido's plans include a set of services. The included services in the Basic plans are outlined as in the screen capture provided above. If a service is not listed in the features of that plan, then it is very likely not included in that plan. The fact that Basic plans do not include sending messages to the US is not hidden somewhere in the fine print. It is clearly not included in the Basic plan feature list. The only aspect regarding sending US text messages in the fine print is the actual pay-per-use rate.
Well, it seems we finally found common agreement:
Nevertheless, just because something is legal doesn't imply that it's ethical. And what's clear in these complaints is that people don't like being treated the way that Fido treats them.
- We agree that my example isn't a one-to-one comparison because I'm not in the telephone business. But that doesn't invalidate an analogy which is, by definition, a comparison of two things with respect to what they have in common....
Two things with respect to what they have in common.... A service with a per hour rate is not similar to a service plan with outlined included services. That's why your analogy is completely different.
Even though I don't have anything to do with telecommunications, a better analogy would be gym memberships. Some gyms have different levels of membership depending on amount of services (ie access to free weights, access to spa, access to advanced health monitors, towel service, etc) included. If their Basic membership does not list towel service as one of its services, it’s not included. However, people with those memberships may occasionally wish to avail of that service on a per towel basis. The Gym is not going to include the per towel cost in their list of Basic membership services -- it will be provided elsewhere. People with that level of membership will have to search (or ask) for the per towel cost. Most people would not consider that situation unethical.
You keep referring to myself and the other the MVPs here as volunteers. We are not volunteers. We do not do contribute here on Fido's behalf. Our views are our own. While I cannot fully speak for the other community members, we are simply fellow customers wanting to help others with some of the information we have accumulated over the years. The notion of wanting to help others as motivation for contributing here might seem foreign to some people. However, we do not have to justify our motives.
Since you appear to not appreciate my input, I will no longer be replying to your posts.
I appreciate you giving me the last word. I think your gym analogy also supports my argument and I appreciate you offering it. I also agree with you that you're not a volunteer. Under the Income Tax Act, you're an independent contractor. I'm happy to elaborate if you wish, but I also realise that I've been branded a troll and a liar despite my efforts to inform, help and be courteous.
Yes they could have put one way calling only. Canada to US. I have Canada number calling Canada number but from the US.
All other providers usually give a one time waive , Rogers waived 259.00 as my Father in law added the same plan but they understood.
Fido is the worst customer service I've dealt with.
Happy New Year and Welcome to the community!
Sorry to hear you've incurred an unexpected roaming charge.
Yes they could have put one way calling only. Canada to US. I have Canada number calling Canada number but from the US. ..
To clarify, Fido Roam charges will incur if your phone uses services -- make or receive a call, send a text message or use data abroad. That is, any usage abroad (except for receiving SMS) would incur roaming charges. It isn't one-way; it's all ways. So making a call to the US (while in US) would also be considered roaming and incur Fido Roam charges.
It should be mentioned that while receiving SMS would not incur the roaming charge, any data contained within MMS (incoming or outgoing) would be considered roaming data and charged accordingly. You should note that MMS are not solely restricted to pictures or video messages. Messages with subject headers or group messages etc are also considered MMS.
That said, if you have a supported device and plan, Wifi-calling may be an option. However, you shoud also be aware of its roaming usage. There seems to be some misunderstanding regarding Wifi-calling . I'm not sure how people have gotten the impression that Wifi-calling does not use the networks. However, that is not true. While the calls and messages do not transmit via cellular towers, they still use the networks via the internet gateway (see image here). The cellular towers and Wifi are merely alternate means of accessing the networks. Calls and messages would not be able to complete or get sent/received without the networks. As such, using Wifi-calling is technically using Fido services. However, they have allowed certain usage to be free from additional charges. All the messages and calls you receive (from anywhere in the world) will be taken from your plan's voice minutes and messaging limits. As well, all Wifi-calling messages and calls you make to a Canadian phone number while abroad won't incur long-distance or roaming charges (see link above).
I'm not sure why this phenomenon is becoming more prevalent, but there seems to be more do first, ask for forgiveness (ie dispute charges) later attitudes circulating. It can be seen on social media as well as television, movies etc. As well, more and more people seem to make assumptions rather than verifying usage circumstance information. There used to be a time when people actually verified what usage would incur additional charges before using their services under those circumstances. I'm not suggesting that you are one of the ones with that ask later attitude. However, they may have ruined customer service courtesy gestures for the rest of us. Fido has also, in the past, made one-time exceptions and waived fees for certain mistakes. As well, other providers also seem to be reducing courtesy gestures. Those small gestures shouldn't be normalised or expected. Otherwise they wouldn't be gestures of courtesy anymore.
**edit** Apologies, I seem to have misunderstood. I initially though you referred to the roaming charges. However, I now believe you were referring to the US calling add-on.
~taken from here.
Get unlimited calling from Canada to the US. There is no suggestion that calls made to Canadian numbers from the US is included with that add-on. **
Hope this helps 😀
Poor Rogers, that struggled to make a mere $1.5 billion in profit in 2021 despite all those mean customers bullying them with their complaints of unethical sales practices, unclear contracts, assumptions of fairness, and misplaced trust. How dare they!
At least there are zealous volunteers willing to do Rogers' holy work of showing that the customer is wrong for not doing exhaustive research on the form agreements, understanding the nuances of the rules and plans, and not getting proper legal counsel before changing a contract.