Rogers, Bell, and Telus have all told the CRTC they will continue charging new fees, claiming that they\u2019re exempt from the commission\u2019s ban on junk fees.<\/p>\n
The CRTC officially implemented rules banning fees<\/a> \u201crelated to the activation or modification of a telecommunications service plan, or any other fee whose main purpose is, in the opinion of the Commission, to discourage subscribers from modifying their service plan or cancelling their contract for telecommunications services\u201d on June 12, 2026. However, the Big Three carriers and their respective flanker brands added new fees that appear to contradict the ban.<\/p>\n As a quick refresher, it started with Bell in May, when the carrier added a $40 device handling fee<\/a>. Rogers launched a similar $40 device setup charge on June 16<\/a>. Telus, on the other hand, went a slightly different route by expanding when and how it charges a $15 SIM card fee<\/a>. The CRTC responded by sending letters to each carrier requesting additional information about the fees and threatening regulatory action if the carriers didn\u2019t change course.<\/p>\n What the carriers are saying<\/p>\n On June 17 and 18, Bell, Telus, and Rogers filed their responses to the CRTC. Across the board, the carriers defended their new fees and told the CRTC they would continue to charge them. The fee ban includes an exemption for \u201creasonable fees,\u201d such as those for physical equipment installations or for additional, optional products customers choose to purchase. However, the CRTC has so far argued that charging fees for phones and SIM cards is not exempt, as both products are \u201crequired for the delivery of the wireless service customers are purchasing.\u201d<\/p>\n In its June 17 letter, Bell reiterated its comments from its June 10 letter, writing that it\u2019s \u201cclear that the Device Handling Fee is fully compliant\u201d with the new rules.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Bell response to CRTC over device handling fee \u2013 June 17 <\/a> by jon <\/a><\/p>\n \u201cIn particular, the fee relates to an optional device purchase that the customer expressly chooses to make, is distinct from the activation or modification of a wireless service plan, recovers legitimate device fulfillment costs, and does not discourage customers from switching or modifying plans,\u201d the company said.<\/p>\n Rogers\u2019 June 18 letter to the CRTC defends more than just its new device setup charge \u2014 it also tries to justify the carrier\u2019s existing SIM fees and a $25 shipping fee it started charging in 2024<\/a>. Regarding the device setup fee, Rogers argues that it\u2019s \u201conly applied to the optional purchase of a device through Rogers and is not a charge for subscribing to a new monthly telecommunications service plan,\u201d and thus the fee is permitted under the new rules.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Rogers response to CRTC over device setup fee \u2013 June 18 <\/a> by jon <\/a><\/p>\n Similarly, Rogers argued that its SIM card and shipping fees aren\u2019t new and that both are related to optional purchases. Further, Rogers claims the SIM fee \u201conly applies to customers who request a new physical SIM card to replace a lost or damaged SIM card,\u201d while the shipping fee is \u201cnot a fee incurred as a result of activating a new retail telecommunications service plan or modifying an existing one.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNone of these fees act as a barrier to customers switching plans or service providers. As such, there is no basis for any further regulatory action by the Commission,\u201d Rogers concludes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Telus response to CRTC over SIM fees \u2013 June 17 <\/a> by jon <\/a><\/p>\n Finally, Telus\u2019 June 17 letter \u2014 the longest of the three at a whopping 18 pages \u2014 extensively argues that the new rules do not apply to its SIM card fees. Telus states that the rules don\u2019t \u201cprohibit carriers from charging for equipment and products,\u201d that SIM fees are not incurred as a result of activating new telecom services, and that the main purpose of the SIM fee isn\u2019t to discourage customers from modifying or cancelling their wireless services.<\/p>\n What comes next?<\/p>\n While some of the arguments from the big three carriers make sense, most of these fees exist in a grey area where the products in question aren\u2019t always required purchases.<\/p>\n For example, an argument could be made that with the proliferation of eSIM technology, physical SIM cards could be an optional purchase, as most phones no longer need a physical card. However, that would leave people with older devices in a lurch \u2014 and that\u2019s not even getting into the fact that Telus charges $15 for both physical SIMs and eSIMs<\/a>.<\/p>\n The device fees can be viewed in a similar way. There are certainly cases where a device is an optional purchase, such as customers who already have a phone and simply want to change plans or carriers. However, there are also cases where people need to purchase a phone; for example, if a customer does not already own a phone, or if their old device is broken or too old to work anymore, a phone is a required purchase, as the CRTC argued.<\/p>\n It\u2019s also worth examining a notable difference between the device fees charged by Bell and Rogers. Bell describes its fee as a one-time charge<\/a> \u201cto cover fulfillment costs associated with your device order.\u201d Rogers, however, has gone to great lengths to frame its device fee as a charge for optional assistance to set up a device.<\/p>\n