Canada Banned Telecom Fees. Bell, Rogers and Telus Found New Ones
Matthew Leo · Published July 22, 2026 · Canada Tech
Canada Banned Certain Telecom Fees. The Big Three Found Another Way.
Canada finally told telecom companies to stop charging customers simply for becoming customers.
Bell, Rogers and Telus responded with an important question:
What if we called the fees something else?
That may sound unfair.
Unfortunately, it is also a fairly accurate summary of the latest fight between Canada’s telecom regulator and the three companies that dominate the country’s cellphone and internet market.
On June 12, 2026, new rules came into force banning fees connected to activating or changing a cellphone or internet plan. The goal was simple: customers should be able to switch providers, change plans or accept a better offer without being punished with an extra charge.
Within days, the CRTC was questioning new charges from all three major providers.
Bell had introduced a $40 device-handling charge.
Telus introduced a $15 charge for a physical SIM card or an eSIM.
Rogers began charging a $40 device setup fee, a $25 shipping fee and, in some cases, a SIM fee.
The companies say these are not prohibited activation fees.
The CRTC is not convinced.
Neither am I.
What Did Canada Actually Ban?
The new rule does not ban every fee a telecom company can charge.
That distinction matters.
The Telecommunications Act now says providers cannot charge a fee related to activating or modifying a telecommunications plan. It also prohibits other fees whose main purpose, in the CRTC’s opinion, is to discourage customers from changing a plan or cancelling a contract.
There are reasonable exceptions.
A company may still charge for a physical installation inside a customer’s home when that work creates a real cost.
It may also charge for an additional product or service that the customer clearly and voluntarily chooses to buy.
For example, a customer might choose to pay for extra equipment or an optional in-home Wi-Fi setup service.
What the company cannot do is hide the basic cost of starting service inside a separate fee and pretend the customer voluntarily bought something extra.
That is where the current argument begins.
The New Fees Under Investigation
The CRTC has opened a formal proceeding requiring Bell, Rogers and Telus to explain why their fees should not be considered violations.
As of July 22, 2026, the regulator has not made a final decision.
Here is what it is examining:
CompanyFeeCompany’s explanationBell$40 device-handling chargeThe phone purchase is optional and separate from the wireless planTelus$15 SIM or eSIM feeSIM cards can be purchased for reasons other than starting serviceRogers$40 device setup chargeThe fee covers help provided through retail and customer-care channelsRogers$25 shipping chargeShipping is a normal delivery costRogersSIM fee, amount unspecified by the CRTCRogers says this applies to replacement physical SIM cards
The CRTC says these charges may violate both the Telecommunications Act and its Wireless and Internet Codes. It has ordered the companies to show why they should not be found in violation.
That is the legal position.
The common-sense position is much simpler.
If a customer must pay a fee while getting a phone and starting service, calling it “device handling” instead of “activation” does not magically make the customer’s wallet feel better.
Bell Says the Phone Is Optional
Bell’s argument is that buying a phone from Bell is optional.
A customer could bring a phone from somewhere else. Therefore, Bell says, its $40 device-handling charge is connected to the separate purchase of a device, not the activation of wireless service.
Bell also says the fee covers legitimate costs related to fulfilling the device order.
There is some logic to that argument.
A phone and a wireless plan are technically different products. Customers can buy unlocked phones elsewhere and bring them to Bell.
But this argument also ignores how telecom services are actually sold.
Providers advertise phones and plans together.
They encourage customers to finance devices through them.
Their stores are built around pairing a new device with a new or upgraded plan.
To then describe the phone purchase as an unrelated side transaction feels wonderfully convenient.
Bell wants the device and plan to be one package when it helps make the sale, but two completely separate transactions when the regulator asks about the fee.
That is not consumer-friendly clarity.
That is corporate grammar.
Telus Is Charging for an eSIM
Telus introduced a $15 charge for physical SIM cards and digital eSIMs beginning June 11, 2026.
That was one day before the new protections took effect.
The CRTC quickly told Telus that a SIM or eSIM is required to deliver the wireless service being purchased and therefore did not appear to qualify as an optional extra.
Telus disagreed.
It argued that customers might buy a SIM for other reasons, such as replacing a damaged SIM or preparing for travel. Telus also said the fee was intended to recover costs rather than discourage switching.
That explanation may make sense for someone voluntarily buying a spare physical SIM.
It makes far less sense when a new customer needs a SIM to use the service at all.
And an eSIM is not even a small piece of plastic being packaged and shipped. It is a digital profile.
Charging $15 for it immediately before an activation-fee ban takes effect is the sort of timing that invites questions.
Telus may eventually convince the CRTC that its charge fits within the law.
It will have a much harder time convincing customers that this is what Parliament intended.
Rogers Has Several Explanations Ready
Rogers introduced its new fees on June 16, four days after the ban took effect.
The company says its $40 device setup fee applies when customers buy a device through an assisted retail or customer-care channel. It does not charge the fee when the purchase is completed through self-service channels.
Rogers argues that customers receiving employee assistance are purchasing a real service and that the fee reflects the cost of providing it.
This creates a troubling idea:
Getting help from the company selling you a complicated wireless contract is now an optional luxury.
The people most likely to need that help may be older customers, people with disabilities, people with limited technical knowledge or customers trying to understand a confusing device-financing agreement.
Self-service may be cheaper for the company.
That does not mean human assistance should automatically become a $40 add-on.
Rogers also defended its $25 shipping charge as a normal delivery expense. That argument is stronger. Shipping a physical device creates a clear cost, and customers may have other ways to receive it.
Its SIM explanation is narrower too. Rogers says the SIM charge is not new and applies only when customers request a replacement for a lost or damaged physical SIM.
Those details deserve to be considered.
Not every fee near an activation is secretly an activation fee.
But the larger pattern still deserves suspicion.
The industry knew the new rule was coming. It knew what problem the rule was meant to solve. Yet instead of giving customers a clean break from connection charges, all three companies found new categories requiring legal explanations.
The Word “Optional” Is Doing Too Much Work
The companies’ arguments rely heavily on the idea that customers are choosing optional products or services.
The phone is optional.
The store employee’s help is optional.
Shipping is optional.
The SIM might be used for something else.
Technically, almost anything can be described as optional if the alternative is inconvenient enough.
You do not need to buy your phone from your carrier.
You can find an unlocked device, confirm that it works on the network, buy it elsewhere, move your number, activate the plan yourself and hope nothing goes wrong.
You do not need employee assistance either.
You can navigate the website, understand the financing terms, select the right plan, transfer your data and solve any technical problems yourself.
That does not mean the normal process of buying and using wireless service should be broken into tiny billable events.
A fee is not truly optional merely because the company has designed a less convenient route around it.
This Is Why Canadians Do Not Trust Telecom Pricing
The problem is bigger than $15 or $40.
It is the constant feeling that the advertised price is never the real price.
There is the monthly plan.
Then the device payment.
Then the setup charge.
Then the shipping charge.
Then the roaming fee.
Then the price increase after the promotional period.
Then the call to customer service where a mysterious discount suddenly appears because you threatened to leave.
Canadian telecom pricing often feels less like purchasing a service and more like negotiating the release of a hostage.
The CRTC’s public consultation found that high activation fees made it harder for people to switch, especially when several members of the same household needed service. Consumer groups also pointed out that activation charges had risen significantly over the years and sometimes appeared excessive compared with the costs they were supposedly recovering.
That is why Parliament changed the law.
It was not trying to start a national debate about whether a SIM card is philosophically separate from a phone plan.
It was trying to stop companies from charging people extra for the ordinary act of starting or changing service.
The Timing Is Difficult to Ignore
Bell’s $40 device-handling charge came to the CRTC’s attention in May, before the rule took effect.
Telus planned to begin charging its $15 SIM and eSIM fee on June 11, one day before enforcement began.
Rogers introduced its device setup and shipping charges on June 16, four days afterwards.
Perhaps these companies independently reviewed the same rule and honestly concluded that these new charges were permitted.
That is possible.
It is also possible that the industry saw a door closing and started measuring the windows.
The CRTC will decide whether the fees violate the exact wording of the law.
Canadians are allowed to judge whether they violate its obvious spirit.
The Big Three Can Afford to Test the Rule
Bell, Rogers and Telus are Canada’s three largest mobile and internet operators by both revenue and subscriber count. The CRTC includes their discount brands and acquired providers when measuring their position in the market.
That scale gives them power.
They have legal teams, regulatory experts and years of experience arguing over the meaning of telecom rules.
An ordinary customer has a bill and perhaps an hour to spend on hold.
That imbalance is why clear regulation matters.
A consumer-protection rule should not require every Canadian to become a part-time telecommunications lawyer before buying a phone.
The companies may argue that their fees recover legitimate costs.
But ordinary business costs do not automatically deserve their own customer-facing charge.
Retailers pay staff.
They handle products.
They operate websites.
They process orders.
They ship goods.
Most businesses recover those costs through the price of what they sell.
Telecom companies have trained Canadians to accept a different system, where almost every part of doing business can appear as a separate line on the bill.
The CRTC Must Do More Than Ask Nicely
The CRTC has threatened serious consequences.
If it finds violations, a company could face an administrative penalty of up to $10 million for a first contravention and up to $15 million for a later one. Relevant officers or directors could also potentially be held personally liable where they directed, approved or participated in the violation.
That sounds strong.
Now the regulator must prove that its rules have teeth.
A ban that immediately becomes a naming exercise is not a ban.
If these charges are allowed, the CRTC needs to explain clearly why they are meaningfully different from the activation fees Canadians were promised would disappear.
If they are not allowed, the regulator should order the companies to stop charging them, refund affected customers and impose consequences large enough to discourage the next creative rename.
Telecom regulation cannot become an endless game of:
“You said we could not charge Fee A. This is Fee B.”
The regulator’s job is not merely to publish rules.
It is to defend their purpose.
What Customers Can Do Now
The investigation is still underway, so customers should not assume every disputed charge will automatically be refunded.
However, anyone charged one of these fees should:
Ask the provider to explain exactly what the fee covers.
Request that the charge be removed or waived.
Save the bill, chat transcript and any written response.
File a complaint with the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services if the provider does not resolve the issue.
The CCTS is Canada’s independent telecom and television complaints body. Customers must first give their provider a reasonable opportunity to solve the problem, but filing a complaint with the CCTS is free.
Canadians can also submit comments in the CRTC proceeding until July 30, 2026. The companies’ replies are due by August 10.
A Fee Does Not Become Fair Because It Has a Better Name
Bell, Rogers and Telus may be able to show that some of these charges pay for real, optional services.
The CRTC should listen to that evidence.
But it should also remember why the law exists.
Customers were tired of being charged extra merely to begin, change or leave a service. Parliament agreed. The CRTC created a rule intended to remove those barriers.
The industry’s first response should have been simple:
Remove the fees.
Instead, Canadians received device-handling charges, setup charges, shipping charges and SIM charges, followed by several paragraphs explaining why none of them is technically an activation fee.
Perhaps that argument will survive the legal process.
It should not survive the common-sense test.
When a banned fee returns wearing a different name, the problem is not confused customers. The problem is a company that understood the rule perfectly and searched for the edge of it.