It may seem like I'm picking on Rogers, but it's just because I have them as a provider and can find great material that much faster. The truth is that Telus and Bell also have the fees.What I'm really curious about is how the big three can sell the idea of a network access fee to their customers like this:
The system access fee is charged to help cover the costs associated with the ongoing operation, maintenance and upgrading of the wireless network.
The fee is not required by nor collected for the federal government or any of its agencies.
The fee is billed in advance each month, and will appear twice on your first invoice. One is for the month in advance and the second is a prorated fee from your activation date to the end of your first billing period.
For more information, please visit our bill explainer .
When the reality is that their own value brand, Fido, advertises NO system access fee. How can one part of a company try to gain customers with a message like NO SAF, implying that other brand have it, when those implicitly described are part of the same mother-ship.
You would think someone at the top would raise a stink. Why can't I just call Rogers and say "If you don't get rid of the SAF, I'm taking my number and switching to Fido. (or Koodo or Solo)" Shouldn't they listen?
The System Access Fee is something that preys on the average customer.