I read a story the other day, that I bookmarked to blog about in the future, which outlined how Verizon Wireless in the United States was lowering its' ETF or Early Termination Fee, based on how much time is left in your contract.

Speculation in the article on Engadget was that pressure from the FCC was what brought about this change of heart, however today I am wondering if it also might have to do something with trying to increase market share, or at least hold on to existing custmers.

Basically on Verizon, as well as my carrier in Canada, Rogers Wireless, because the phone you purchase is subsidized, they charge you an Early Termination Fee if you cancel your contract early under the guise that because the phones are very expensive, unless you keep your contract and your phone for the full term, the carrier is losing money. I agree with that to some extent. However what I have never agreed with is that on the last month of your contract, your Early Termination Fee is the same as in the first month. Verizon has changed their contracts now, for new signups, to prorate this amount, based on the length of time you have had the contract in force. This in my opinion is how it should work, and how I remember it working at Rogers in the past, when I first became a customer of theirs.

So today, I read a story from the CBC, that Rogers has petitioned the CRTC to have rival cell phone carriers cover outstanding bills when a customer switches providers. Now here is the thing... perhaps customers would not leave Rogers with outstanding balances on their account, if the Early Termination Fee was not charged.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of outstanding debt is made up of the ETF for former customers of Rogers.

The other thing to consider is, the new carrier didn't enter into a contract with Rogers, the customer did. The fact that the customer is porting the number over to the new carrier that they had with Rogers does not in my mind make that new carrier responsible for covering the ETF or any other outstanding charges.

Dear Rogers, instead of charging a ridiculous ETF to try and coerce customers to stay with you, how about providing better coverage, stop subsidizing phones, and lower your monthly fees. The money you save writing down your bad debt, and chasing after deadbeat clients surely could cover the costs of increasing your network coverage and service levels.

• Darren Mak's blog