We need to speak with you directly in order to process your cancellation request and ensure you are informed of any details relating to your account changes."
If you signed up online and are located in California, then they must let you cancel online[1]. Reminding them of this fact (with a link to just about any article about the law) is useful.
Maybe that is their way of confirming that you are a real person who actually wants to cancel and not some bot programmed to wreak havoc on some company by canceling many of their customers' service.
Unlikely. Rogers is such a terrible internet company I was glad when I moved back to the US got to use American cable companies (as terrible as they are).
This is a standard, and terrible, practice with many large companies. They want you to call them so a "customer retention" specialist can try to talk you into not cancelling. They'll usually offer you a great deal to stay.
On the flip side, this process can be abused by people who don't actually intend on leaving to get better rates/prices. I've done it a few times over the years to deal with rising costs of an ISP when I don't have any good competitor to actually switch to.
This is the correct answer.
In the book I am going through now, which is by one of those high performing sales centric CEO's who makes a fuck load of money, says new customers are the goal.
Not retention, not customer service, not the customer experience.
Then he proceeds to order them by priority.
It is backwards, I do not think this way. Yet, the modern successful business does.
Roger's isnt really a business, it's part of an oligopoly and more like a government utility. They do focus on churning customers from their identical "competitors", but a big part of their model is making it as hard as possible to cancel. Normal business rules don't apply, it's basically government rent seeking and doing as little for customers as possible while charging them as much as possible. The Canadian telecom industry bears no resemblance to "business".
a fascinating thing to learn in canada, as someone who works in the telecom industry, is that the vast majority of non-industry consumers have absolutely no idea who really owns the various MVNO/flanker brands like chatr, fido, koodoo, public mobile etc which all run on the networks of Bell, Telus, Rogers.
the ordinary consumer really does believe these are separate networks.
I think I can get what you're saying, but unlike in the EU where true MNVOs exists (which are independent of the backbone carrier and can switch to a different one for a lot of reasons), in Canada they are effectively subbrands of the same carriers. For example, Fido (https://www.fido.ca/) is owned by Rogers (the same company the OP is asking about) and Koodo (https://www.koodomobile.com/en) is owned by Telus but the carriers are "shy" to show that these MNVOs are ultimately owned by the same carriers they want to leave from (try to poke their websites and you'll be hard-press to find that they're subbrands).
There is one relatively easy way, but it is also one that is non-obvious.
If you click the careers button it takes you to the careers page of the parent company, since they don't want to bother creating a separate careers service for the sub-brand to fully maintain the ruse.
Or even read their privacy policy, but I'm assuming that a normal, non-techie user who doesn't know anything about MVNOs won't bother to comb through their contract or T&Cs.
> If you care about customer experience, talk to the government, not businesses
As if the CRTC doesn't meet the absolute economics 101 textbook definition of Regulatory Capture.
If the Canadian federal government had any intention of applying actual consumer-friendly policies with teeth to the telecom industry, they wouldn't be letting Shaw and Rogers merge. But they almost certainly will.
In Canada this is not a (L) or (C) political problem, both parties have been equally bad in the last 25 years letting telecom companies with billions of dollars market cap do basically whatever the hell they wanted. Under Chretien, Martin, Harper, and Trudeau. It's more a problem of the wealthy throwing their weight around in Canadian business influence over the government policies generally.
Likely because this is a Canadian company, though I have no experience with Canadian government services myself, but I would agree with you, being in the US. This statement, applied to the US is laughably hilarious in most of the country.
A few times when calling to either cancel something or file a claim on some protection plan, I’ve set a stopwatch the instant the hold music begins. Lo and behold, the line starts ringing to connect on the 30 minute mark, or some other extremely suspicious round number. I’m convinced some MBA found that some desirable percentage give up after so many minutes on hold, so they made the hold period mandatory.
I had that a few years ago on those scummy up sell warranty plans they trick you into buying at car dealerships. I had to fax a signed cancellation form. Thankfully there are Web services that allow you to send pdfs but it was obnoxious.
I have a question, maybe it is unethical, maybe I am really that close to the spectrum I need it, but here it goes.
Has anyone used TTY functions/ Services for the deaf/disabled to communicate with customer service to enable you to not actually talk to people on the phone?
There are apps that claim to cancel subscriptions for you, like TrueBill and Rocket Money. I haven't tried it, but I'm curious how this is implemented and how well it works.
When I cancelled my cable internet, I had to call and decline three increasingly appealing “final offers” (spaced out by some pleasant-but-awkward small talk).
As soon as I said no to the third, the rep said they would disconnect the account, and that was it. Super weird, especially to think that that is literally someone’s job, all day long, every day. Hopefully they get to rotate in and out of that desk.
pro tip: Tell comcast, RCN, spectrum (charter), altice or other customer service that you're going to prison. It bypasses all their script for retention offers.
This sounds great but is a bit worrisome given companies monetize everything, including any information they learn about you to sell to other parties.
Imagine the damage if a company like Comcast passed this info on to Palantir or one of its ilk.
Given employers have used private screening companies for ages and landlords increasingly use them, it could seriously fuck up your life, and you'd never even know...
I wonder what happens if you mess with the data mining by telling comcast you're going to prison, click on every ad and join groups on social media for new moms/baby related items, join every social media group you can find for some absolutely absurd and non-rational political opinion, buy a hundred two dollar dildos on alibaba with a prepaid visa gift card, etc. What does the data set look like after you screw with your profile...
Rogers is an abysmally bad company in terms of market near-monpolization and customer service, BUT, from the point of view of someone in telecom:
There is a non zero risk of unauthorized 3rd parties making service changes or cancellations to somebody's account, so it's standard procedure to have a customer service rep ask some basic security questions of the account holder before proceeding with a port, change or cancellation.
You don't want just any random person who stole your login/password to the rogers portal to be able to port your cellphone number away, right?
There's a valid reason why a few barriers should be introduced to cancelling someone's service or making significant service changes, before the company can be totally satisfied that it really is the authorized account holder making the change.
You get security problems like people trying to port away someone's number to receive SMS for "SMS 2FA" (which is not really 2FA at all, that's a whole other shitshow) to hijack cryptocurrency trading accounts or similar. Or any other service that can have its credentials reset by sending an SMS to the "authorized" phone number.
In addition to the risk of fraud for things like porting numbers away, there's things like disgruntled ex-girlfriends/ex-boyfriends trying to cancel peoples' services.
All of that said, it is also a sad fact that C-level execs at big consumer-abusive canadian telecoms consider it totally fine to introduce whatever arbitrary barriers they can to reduce the level of customer churn.
There is the factor that a great many Rogers customers have been tricked at the start of their service into signing up for 12, 24 or 36 month term contracts, so arbitrarily cancelling service can have financial implications for the customer if they didn't look in detail at what they signed up for when they started the service. Even with BYOD device plans, the 3rd party Rogers resellers in Canada such as Glentel get a buttload more commission from locking people into 24 month contract terms, so they do that as the default now unless you look carefully at what you're signing.
Do you believe that's what this requirement is for?
This has not been my experience, although I have never dealt with Rogers. Whenever I have canceled service from a similar vendor in this market, they want me to talk to a representative to try and encourage me to stay, not to make sure I am who I say I am. I am not sure how they would determine authenticity over the phone any better than they could electronically, although I know there are 'voice print' authentication services now that maybe they use.
Overall, when I see this I believe it's to introduce enough friction that some people will give up without trying.
I believe it's a combination of both. The authentication questions are often something quite basic that an account hijacker might not be in possession of, unless they bought basically a full identity theft kit/data set from some data dump. Like residential address, date of birth, last four digits of the credit card or current billing method, etc.
> There is a non zero risk of unauthorized 3rd parties making service changes or cancellations to somebody's account, so it's standard procedure to have a customer service rep ask some basic security questions of the account holder before proceeding with a port, change or cancellation.
This isn't really true. It's very easy to get a replacement SIM sent or a number ported and is primarily how a lot of financial and online accounts are compromised.
Some carriers allow for specifying a SIM and porting lock on the account with an additional password, or requiring an in-person visit to a physical store with ID.
I didn't say it's hard to do, any moderately competent social engineer can bluster the phone customer service reps into porting away someone's account, it absolutely happens all the time.
Democracy being highly illusory may have something to do with it - I suspect such policies (this is just one among many) being legal is not The Will of The People.
For wireless you don't actually have to call. You can just ask your new provider to port the phone number and your subscription on your old provider will be deactivated.
But yes, it's bullshit and it's worse for those other services.
I've recently got a preloaded Visa that doesn't effect credit that I'll be using for shit companies that I have to deal with so I can just cut off the funding instead. Problem should take care of itself.
It's shocking to me that you can't simply stop paying when you don't want to use a service anymore - you have to ask them to stop taking your money. When you actually think about it, it's ridiculous and unacceptable.
> I've recently got a preloaded Visa that doesn't effect credit that I'll be using for shit companies that I have to deal with so I can just cut off the funding instead. Problem should take care of itself.
Not being able to charge your card doesn’t mean you’re not liable for the charges. If it’s worth it, they’ll sell your accounts receivable to a collection agency.
That method of skipping out on cancellation only works if they don’t actually have a name / address / etc to identify you.
> It's shocking to me that you can't simply stop paying when you don't want to use a service anymore - you have to ask them to stop taking your money. When you actually think about it, it's ridiculous and unacceptable.
It's because there's a contract behind the service, and contracts have agreements which bind one or both parties, so the other party needs to be informed w.r.t. the change.
Cutting off service when there's no payment would also be "ridiculous and unacceptable" in some cases - e.g. think if the lights just go off when you forget to preload your Visa, instead of just getting a nudge.
But of course I concede to your between-the-lines point, namely that it would be best if the companies knew exactly what we want done (which they sort of do), and did it without a hassle (which they sort of don't), instead of being pricks about it all.
Companies check for pre-paid cards. Those cards cannot be used for subscriptions, so it fails some test that they make when validating cards.
Every single one of those "free trial period" scams that require a credit card to sign up (for the allegedly "free" trial period) will fail with a prepaid card. I have tried.
It is my position that every sort of "free trial period" that requires calling or snailmailing in order to cancel should be outlawed. With hefty penalties for all execs at such organizations.
They are also notorious for charging loyal customers 4-5x as much after the initial "get you hooked offer". Calling and threatening to cancel magically reinstates the price that simply isn't possible except for new customers.
It's exactly the reason I didn't continue with them after my car's free trial. If they made it easy, like Netflix, they would have gotten a chunk of money from me over the past 4 years. Instead they got nothing.
In Canada? If you're on a month-to-month service term with Rogers, nothing, if you signed a 12/24/36 month service agreement and you break it before the term is up, they send it to collections and it ends up on your credit report.
The real solution here is for techies to push (actually show up and push, as in pressure city councils and representatives at meetings) for similar laws in their communities.
In conservative towns, a call is usually a sign of mutual respect between the two parties involved. Making everything digital destroys the community between buyer and seller and is a reason why there is service fatigue and exhaustion in left-leaning communities today.
Germany recently passed a law because of this. Providers who offer contracts over the internet now have to also show a "Cancel"-Button that cannot be hidden behind sub-menus. It's really great.
67 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 128 ms ] threadWe need to speak with you directly in order to process your cancellation request and ensure you are informed of any details relating to your account changes."
this is BS.
[1] https://www.consumerprotectionreview.com/2021/11/california-...
The optimization is for short term profit, not for customer experience.
If you care about customer experience, talk to the government, not businesses
Not retention, not customer service, not the customer experience.
Then he proceeds to order them by priority.
It is backwards, I do not think this way. Yet, the modern successful business does.
the ordinary consumer really does believe these are separate networks.
“The same great coverage as TDC because we use their network, but you only pay xx DKK” kind of thing is quite common.
If you click the careers button it takes you to the careers page of the parent company, since they don't want to bother creating a separate careers service for the sub-brand to fully maintain the ruse.
As if the CRTC doesn't meet the absolute economics 101 textbook definition of Regulatory Capture.
If the Canadian federal government had any intention of applying actual consumer-friendly policies with teeth to the telecom industry, they wouldn't be letting Shaw and Rogers merge. But they almost certainly will.
In Canada this is not a (L) or (C) political problem, both parties have been equally bad in the last 25 years letting telecom companies with billions of dollars market cap do basically whatever the hell they wanted. Under Chretien, Martin, Harper, and Trudeau. It's more a problem of the wealthy throwing their weight around in Canadian business influence over the government policies generally.
so much irony in this statement
Has anyone used TTY functions/ Services for the deaf/disabled to communicate with customer service to enable you to not actually talk to people on the phone?
Does that still exist?
As soon as I said no to the third, the rep said they would disconnect the account, and that was it. Super weird, especially to think that that is literally someone’s job, all day long, every day. Hopefully they get to rotate in and out of that desk.
Imagine the damage if a company like Comcast passed this info on to Palantir or one of its ilk.
Given employers have used private screening companies for ages and landlords increasingly use them, it could seriously fuck up your life, and you'd never even know...
There is a non zero risk of unauthorized 3rd parties making service changes or cancellations to somebody's account, so it's standard procedure to have a customer service rep ask some basic security questions of the account holder before proceeding with a port, change or cancellation.
You don't want just any random person who stole your login/password to the rogers portal to be able to port your cellphone number away, right?
There's a valid reason why a few barriers should be introduced to cancelling someone's service or making significant service changes, before the company can be totally satisfied that it really is the authorized account holder making the change.
You get security problems like people trying to port away someone's number to receive SMS for "SMS 2FA" (which is not really 2FA at all, that's a whole other shitshow) to hijack cryptocurrency trading accounts or similar. Or any other service that can have its credentials reset by sending an SMS to the "authorized" phone number.
In addition to the risk of fraud for things like porting numbers away, there's things like disgruntled ex-girlfriends/ex-boyfriends trying to cancel peoples' services.
All of that said, it is also a sad fact that C-level execs at big consumer-abusive canadian telecoms consider it totally fine to introduce whatever arbitrary barriers they can to reduce the level of customer churn.
There is the factor that a great many Rogers customers have been tricked at the start of their service into signing up for 12, 24 or 36 month term contracts, so arbitrarily cancelling service can have financial implications for the customer if they didn't look in detail at what they signed up for when they started the service. Even with BYOD device plans, the 3rd party Rogers resellers in Canada such as Glentel get a buttload more commission from locking people into 24 month contract terms, so they do that as the default now unless you look carefully at what you're signing.
This has not been my experience, although I have never dealt with Rogers. Whenever I have canceled service from a similar vendor in this market, they want me to talk to a representative to try and encourage me to stay, not to make sure I am who I say I am. I am not sure how they would determine authenticity over the phone any better than they could electronically, although I know there are 'voice print' authentication services now that maybe they use.
Overall, when I see this I believe it's to introduce enough friction that some people will give up without trying.
This isn't really true. It's very easy to get a replacement SIM sent or a number ported and is primarily how a lot of financial and online accounts are compromised.
Some carriers allow for specifying a SIM and porting lock on the account with an additional password, or requiring an in-person visit to a physical store with ID.
But yes, it's bullshit and it's worse for those other services.
I've recently got a preloaded Visa that doesn't effect credit that I'll be using for shit companies that I have to deal with so I can just cut off the funding instead. Problem should take care of itself.
It's shocking to me that you can't simply stop paying when you don't want to use a service anymore - you have to ask them to stop taking your money. When you actually think about it, it's ridiculous and unacceptable.
Not being able to charge your card doesn’t mean you’re not liable for the charges. If it’s worth it, they’ll sell your accounts receivable to a collection agency.
That method of skipping out on cancellation only works if they don’t actually have a name / address / etc to identify you.
It's meant to be a method of last resort.
It's because there's a contract behind the service, and contracts have agreements which bind one or both parties, so the other party needs to be informed w.r.t. the change.
Cutting off service when there's no payment would also be "ridiculous and unacceptable" in some cases - e.g. think if the lights just go off when you forget to preload your Visa, instead of just getting a nudge.
But of course I concede to your between-the-lines point, namely that it would be best if the companies knew exactly what we want done (which they sort of do), and did it without a hassle (which they sort of don't), instead of being pricks about it all.
Every single one of those "free trial period" scams that require a credit card to sign up (for the allegedly "free" trial period) will fail with a prepaid card. I have tried.
It is my position that every sort of "free trial period" that requires calling or snailmailing in order to cancel should be outlawed. With hefty penalties for all execs at such organizations.
It's exactly the reason I didn't continue with them after my car's free trial. If they made it easy, like Netflix, they would have gotten a chunk of money from me over the past 4 years. Instead they got nothing.
Then they can call you if they are interested.
But indeed, this shit should be illegal practice.