The day before the CRTC announced that Canadians could now cancel their cell phone contracts after two years instead of three, An article in the Globe and Mail came with a curious title:
The article, penned by The Globe’s Rita Trichur, cites a study that is based on 2011 data by Nordicity and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, “the main lobby group for the $19-billion industry”.
The study, says Trichur, “calculates a concept called the “consumer surplus” which is the difference between the dollar value a consumer ascribes to a service and its going market rate.”
Canadian Wireless Telecom Association president Bernard Lord says despite moans and groans about their plans, Canadians are paying for data because they see value in it.
“When I hear these groups, the detractors and the professional complainers, sometimes out there saying: ‘Oh, this is bad, and things are awful,’ somehow they are suggesting that maybe Canadians don’t know what they are doing,” he said. “Canadians are buying the most sophisticated devices … and that’s because they see the value of it.”
Meanwhile, in the comments section of the story, Lord would be hard-pressed to find someone who agrees with him.
User “Joebuda” was incredulent.
Seriously??? Let me guess they surveyed the CEO’s of the major providers. I can’t think of ever hearing anyone say ” Wow I am so happy with the level of service of my cellular provider, I would happily pay more for it!” When I was in Europe on vacation I had a prepay plan that charged me 50 cents a minute to call Canada! Here it costs 45 cents/min to call 2 towns over. On the world stage we are one of the top countries that gets gouged by cell companies.
Reader Grampa Canuck seemed to argue that wireless service has become essential, and so Canadians pay what they have to.
“FLASH! Canadians willing to pay more for food.
In a recent study, it was found that given the alternatives of surviving or starving to death, a majority of Canadian respondents elected the option of staying alive.”
User “WKP – Out West” says the findings come down to tricky stickhandling with semantics.
“I bet that I could phrase my study so that all Canadians would like to pay a low amount.
Leading questions get bogus answers.”
What do you think?