Talk:Rogers Wireless

message: In the services section, I am sure you will notice that it mentions that "customer's should be weary of signing contract..." mention cancellation fees, etc. This does not really have encyclopaedic merit. It is common knowledge, and practice with practically EVERY cellular carrier to have a contract buy-out clause. In actuality, most of these are not classified as charges, but are in fact liquidated damages resulting in the cancellation of the contract. However, I feel that this part should be removed from the article, as it is a) not unique to Rogers Wireless and b) Speaks in a tone of consumer awareness and is unprofessional, not of value for an encyclopaedia. 207.112.70.213 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wary of Signing Contract

message: As Rogers Vision is a suite of services offered by Rogers Wireless, I would like to propose that the article be merged into this one as Vision does not theoretically require it's own article.-Calvinhrn 06:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Merger

message: 5.5 Million subscribers Covers 93% of the Canadian Population
What is this supposed to mean. 5.5 million represents 93% of the Canadian population that use cellphones? - Lucky13pjn 22:30, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, the statistic should indicate that the coverage area of this network contains 93% of Canada's population. I'm not sure of the best wording, though. Musser 03:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coverage Claims

message: Rogers has not said they would carry the iPhone.
clip from the article that was cited:
In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Rogers chief operating officer Nadir Mohamed said that it makes sense for Rogers to introduce the iPhone to Canadian customers. "I’m not saying whether we have agreements or anything [with Apple], but given the iPhone was launched on GSM, we’re in a good position to reinforce that we’re the first and have the best-feature devices."
As of September 2007, Rogers has not indicated that they would carry the iPhone and if they were to, when Canadians would be able to get one by.  Should we perhaps remove that reference from the main article since the information appears to be incorrect?  Calvinhrn 07:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: iPhone Announcement

message: :Image:Rogers AT&T.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rogers AT&T.png

message: :Image:Rogers Wireless.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rogers Wireless.png

message: Hey, Rogers Wireless is 34% owned by at&t and 66% owned by Rogers Communications.
Recent information would indicate that AT&T has not held any stake in the company since the name changed from Rogers AT&T Wireless.  A look on the Rogers corporate site would indicate that ownership is with primarily Canadian companies, with Rogers Communications holding majority ownership still.  Calvinhrn 07:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: I have tagged the criticism section for cleanup as it reads more like a blog post than something of encyclopedic merit.  Cleanup on this section is critical as it has failed to meet proper standards in the past.  Calvinhrn (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for tagging it. I've made a first pass, but it could probably use another round. --Ckatzchatspy 07:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section Cleanup

message: I know there is the "Material Adverse" Clause in the United States where clients can cancel their contract without penalty within 30 days of the change but I don't think there is such a thing in Canada... at least that's what all major Telecommunication companies told their clients for years. I looked up for such laws in Canada and I can't find it. Can somebody look this up? --SPACEBAR (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cancel contract without penalty as mandated by law?