Ruinediphone.com: Activism Gone Wrong?
Okay, some disclosure: first, I am kinda’ excited about getting an iPhone now that it’s finally coming out in Canada; and secondly, I can do so without feeling too awful simply because, thanks to a family member who’s a Rogers employee, I get 50% off the plans. So with those two disclaimers in mind…
When the outrage over Rogers’ iPhone pricing plans spread like wildfire through the Canadian tech blogosphere, I wasn’t at all surprised. In the face of no competition, we all knew that Rogers would gouge their customers and provide significantly less data for more money when compared to other carriers across the world. So, I took it all in stride and even joined in the chorus. I may loosely call myself a marxist but, unfortunately, I am first and foremost a geek.
Things, however, started to turn a bit sour with the arrival of fuckyourogers.com, which has since become ruinediphone.com. In principle, this was democracy and the free market at work – a group of potential consumers using internet’s easy and powerful methods for aggregating and centralising opinion to voice their displeasure. But the tone of the outrage began to change rather quickly, as the comments on blogs and newspaper sites began to shift from frustration to a sense of entitlement, a sentiment captured by Jack Kapica in this column here.
I’m conflicted. On the one hand, I agree with some of Rob’s assertions that the iPhone is a sort of technological and cultural locus for the transition to a fully mobile web. And like Rob, I believe a persistent mobile connection to the internet at high speeds will have profound ramifications for both culture and business/productivity. On top of all this, as a potential customer, I think Rogers’ pricing plans are, well, stupid.
At the same time, something about this feels off to me. During Michael Geist’s keynote at Mesh 08, I (very nervously) asked whether digital advocacy was in danger of becoming co-opted by an emphasis on consumer rights rather than political activism. Geist agreed, suggesting that it is almost inevitable that something like Bill C61 or the iPhone would get more play than political struggle. And it may just be my naivete, but it feels strange that anyone in a position to buy an iPhone and pay for a monthly plan would behave as if the government had just curbed free speech or dismantled the welfare state. Read the comments on the Globe and Mail or elsewhere and you’ll get the sense that these are the complaints of people who have never had to worry about their next meal, or even their kids’ tuition.
Consumer outrage is great. It’s a check and balance on corporate greed, something Rogers is famous for. But is this misplaced activism? An almost petulant sort of frustration about having to pay too much to use Apple’s shiny new toy? Don’t get me wrong: I am not on Rogers’ side here. But at the same time, I think I’ve lost my initial support for the people behind ruinediphone.com. So whaddya’ think? Justified consumer complaint? Or activism turned childish temper tantrum?
I think I agree most strongly with Kapica. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. If enough people avoid giving into Rogers’ pricing plan, they might actually have an incentive to change it. And no one is entitled to an iPhone.
I think the more important general point is the state of mobile technology in Canada though. If we want to remain competitive and “keep up” with other countries, we need competitive pricing so that Canadians can take advantage of technology that others are shifting to in other countries (whether it’s an iPhone or a mobile with Android, OpenMoko…), etc etc.
Petitioning Steve Jobs as if Canadians are entitled to an iPhone and this is some serious restriction on our freedom? That’s silly. But trying to draw attention to the fact that Canada’s mobile operators make it difficult to use this sort of technology in our country? That’s valuable.
I sympathize with a lot of the complaints, but not the sense of entitlement. Though, I’ve no interest in an iPhone, regardless of pricing.
Thanks for the balanced comment Blaise. I get what you’re saying and I do agree that Canada really needs to open up its wireless market. It’s always seemed odd that we have such high internet usage and broadband penetration and yet very little innovation (at least compared to other similarly wealthy countries). So, as you said, it’s the sense of entitlement that’s frustrating, not the legitimate complaints about the restrictive activities/pricing of wireless carriers.
I think a lot of people are missing the point with this …yes, in a (supposedly) capitalistic market, if you don’t like the price (or the product, or the terms, etc.) then don’t buy it. I absolutely would not buy this thing for the price and terms offered $1,100 to break the three year term is rediculous …but I digress. The point here is that monopolies are inherently evil …”power corrupts, absoulute power corrupts, absolutely”. O.K., so technically they are an oligopoly in some areas and a monopoly in others …but this is a BRIGHT SPOLTLIGHT shining example of WHY MONOPOLIES ARE BAD and COMPETITION IS GOOD! There is NO GOOD REASON for monopolies in wirless communications. Yes, in a wired world, there may have been some justification, but there is no justification in a wireless world. This monopoly has been allowed to happen via the way the Government has auctioned off the airwaves (which really belong to us, actually). We get the VERY SAME PLAYERS again, because they have been able to use the absurd amounts of money that they have been able to make, fueled largely by a lack of competition, to outbid anyone else who may have been interested in getting into the market.
WAKE UP Government of Canada (my government), this is really your mess, you need to clean it up. Open up competition. If you need to let foreign owned companies into the market then so be it, THE CANDAIAN OWNED COMPANIES ARE SCREWING US!!! …ummm please
I think Blaise Alleyne has nailed it–we need competitive pricing to keep up as a country. Having to buy into a three-year package to get anywhere near competitive prices is ridiculous for those of us who like to stay on the cutting edge and use the latest technology.
It seems that the existing companies are using business models stuck in the 90s. Wouldn’t it make more sense to drop pricing and get more people using their products across the board? I keep holding off signing up for anything until they become more reasonable. Hmmm…I might be waiting quite a while.
Great post. Personally, I think social media is ideal for digital advocacy focused on consumer rights, consumer power, or anything else consumer-oriented. This is how the masses speak, basically, and it’s a powerful way to demonstrate to the powerful just how powerful they aren’t, and just how much damage to their brands they stand to inflict by ignoring widely-held consumer views.
I personally see nothing wrong with people using social media to express a “petulant sort of frustration about having to pay too much to use Apple’s shiny new toy”. Isn’t this just the natural and efficient operation of the market?
No doubt, Rogers is only doing what it ought: maximise its profits to take advantage of its environment.
It’s not Rogers’ fault. It is the government’s (The government approved the buyout of Fido by Rogers). Which, in turn, makes it ours. Long term it is the fault of the Residents of Canada.
When we take back responsibility we can pressure for what we need: Competitive industry where we are not held to ransom.
Yet we must not forget, the frustrations of the people who sign the petitions are valid. They may be symptomatic reactions, but they are reactions of people who want change. They are applying pressure.
Will protests make a difference? It certainly injures Rogers’ brand but who cares about using a brand to gain market share when you have a monopoly?
Our goal now must be to get the government to notice the protests online. Rogers will only care when it means something to their motives. http://martin.cleaver.org/blog/2007/04/09/the-stupidity-of-canadian-telcos-with-their-exhoribitant-data-rates/
Ring your MP. Let them know you care.
I can see all sides in this debate. What worries me though is that consumers to date are not buying these phones or using data in larges quantities. We are falling behind other countries. There is a lot of missed revenue here. I have read that a lot of online sales in Japan happen on a mobile device. Regardless, we are falling behind the rest of the world, consumers are afraid to use their data, so we are staying stagnant as far as being wired while mobile. Maybe this will all change with Bell’s Instinct announcement today and a much better data plan.
The best thing to come out of this whole thing is awareness. It was loud because it was the iPhone, but everyone was sick of our nickel and dime carriers long before the iPhone came out.
Thanks for the comments everyone and I do agree with all of them. My point, however, was not so much to jump on the “Canada’s wireless providers suck” bandwagon as it was to suggest that it’s unfortunate – if understandable – that so much energy is expended on issues of consumer rights, particularly when it’s possible that such activity comes at the expense of other concerns: child poverty, green issues or Harper’s steady march right and south.
And Rob, it’s quite true that the masses speak through consumer activity. I’d just argue that this is a function of late capitalism that I’m not entirely behind. I think the neat equivalence between consumer activity and democratic participation is potentially reductionist and inadvertently closes off avenues of action in areas that cannot be adequately captured by ‘consumption’.
I think it’s a very valid point that the principle of the advocating for change in general pricing plans for Canadian mobile data rates has been skewed but I don’t think it has gone wrong because it is important for people to talk about this issue. I find that we as Canadians tend to simply accept the fact that businesses can and will push us around and we take it.
While people could have converged on the general pricing plans to protest rates, it does not have the same effect as if people converged on protesting data rates for one phone that symbolizes what can be the future of mobile web development.
I would however push forward the fact that we as customers, citizens, and consumers ARE entitled to greater things — all three roles are tied together. To simply say that we don’t have to buy something is to deny the fact that we want something. The difference is that if we acknowledge that we want something and push back by not buying the iphone (or whatever product), businesses will have to take into consideration of the fact that their customers are actually a partner in what is referred to as the business to consumer relationship.
If they want to sell us something, they have to acknowledge that we have our demands and meet them adequately. This is how good and effective long-term business is done, but it’s up to us as the customers in different forms (at work or at home) to make sure the other side understands.
Nav, the fact is we live in a consumer society. They call us consumers for a reason. We live to consume. Rogers apparently didn’t realise this. By denying consumers in Canada an unlimited rate plan they have effectively taken the bottle away from the baby. That’s why there’s so much crying going on. Green/political issues generally get in the way of our unabated passion to consume, so they will always get less attention and generate less action. Basically we suck, and we like to suck as much as we can get, for as little money as possible. Sad but true.
@Ehren: I agree. Something I do wonder, however, is if they’re will be enough Apple fanboys/girls who will simply buy the phone, ‘proving’ that the people complaining were ‘merely a vocal minority’.
@Crispin: Fair enough, but I don’t see why I should resign myself to acceptance rather than critiquing some of the downsides of the changes we’re all a part of.
P.S. great muxtape!
@Nav: Of course you absolutely should express your frustration! You just have to accept that your post is only putting more fuel on the very fire you’re objecting to, and it probably won’t do anything to change the behaviour of the people you are critiquing.
What I would like to see is an online petition to solicit names/comments protesting the ridiculous amount of attention the Rogers/iPhone issue is getting while the rest of the world is dealing with global warming and an impending global food crisis. I’d be interested to see how many names that petition would get and how many media outlets would pick up on it.
@Rob: Thanks! You’re the second person to say that this week…
@Crispin: I’m an academic – I accepted that my words will change nothing a looong time ago…
I’m going to be protesting with my wallet next week, by paying the ECF (a ridiculous $500 Rogers charges) and going to Bell or Telus. I believe I do have a right to speak up about the unfair position Rogers has taken on the data usage, and how poorly all three big companies have treated their wireless customers over the years.
No, I don’t feel a sense of entitlement, but nor do I feel I should just sit back and say nothing.
And yes, I wish us Canadians would be far more vocal about other much larger and important issues we face. Maybe this is a start? Sad that it has to be corporate greed to wake us up, but hopefully, it will?