Slashdot Mirror


Massive Canadian Class-Action Cellphone Suit Is Approved

BeanBunny writes "A Saskatchewan, Canada court has ruled that a $12 billion class-action suit can proceed. The suit alleges that 'system access fees' that the cellphone companies have charged ($7-9 per month) are unfair and constitute price gouging. 'It is described as the largest class-action in Canadian history, potentially affecting every cellphone user in the country. Currently, there are 7,500 complainants signed onto the suit.'"

242 comments

  1. Classic Bait & Switch by ivormi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is classic bait and switch tactics... Advertise one price, and then hit the customers with another. Their only real justification is that 'everyone else is doing it' and that not doing so would put them out of business. Its about time something like this came along.

    1. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is classic bait and switch tactics...

      Advertise one price, and then hit the customers with another. Their only real justification is that 'everyone else is doing it' and that not doing so would put them out of business. Its about time something like this came along. There's one company that doesn't have additional fees, and it's part of their sales pitch.
      I don't like to do free publicity, so I'll just say that company hasn't been deflowered nudge, nudge, wink wink, say no more.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Jason1729 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yeah, but Virgin's website makes stupid noises that I guess some people with no taste might call music. I'd pay the system access fee just to not have to listen to that garbage every time I want to check my account online.

      Seriously, what kind of demented company alienates 90% of their potential market within 10 seconds of them visiting the site?

    3. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Virgin's website makes stupid noises Really? I haven't noticed. Have you heard of http://noscript.net/ ? It's a great way of not noticing these things that annoy you.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Jason1729 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why should I have to do that? I want to view the content as intended. And if the intended way annoys me, I'll take my business elsewhere.

    5. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i moved to canada a year ago. in BC there are only 2 cell companies, they charge about the same. there are 3 gas station chains, they all charge the same. there are 2 satellite tv companies, they mostly charge the same. i dont think they really like competition up here. the cell phone rates are 3 times the usa plans, i end up paying 40.00 a month for 250 outbound mins. i cant get email, send sms, no voice mail, everything is extra. its really a hose job.

    6. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I want to view the content as intended. And if the intended way annoys me, I'll take my business elsewhere. I'm at a loss for words.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    7. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 1

      OK, I live in the next province, and I have the same provider choices as you. I pay $55 a month for unlimited evenings and weekends after 6:00, voicemail, 300 outgoing SMS per month and 200 peak minutes per month. It took me 35 minutes on the phone with the rep, and she even threw in a $350 phone because I signed a two-year contract (but not the three-year one she wanted. Heh).

      So, evidently you suck as a negotiator. You're a pretty good complainer, though. Did you pay sticker-price for your car, too?

      --

      -
      Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
    8. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by seanthenerd · · Score: 1

      Although, they make up for it with "account expiry" times lasting a month. I'm using their Pay-As-You-Go; I normally spend about $5/month. However, if I don't "top up" (stupid buzzwords!) my account every month, I'll lose the current account balance. It wouldn't be a problem if they let you pay in increments less than *fifteen* dollars at a time! After using the phone since Christmas, I have about $80 in my account, and if I don't keep on paying $15/month I'll lose that. Consider it already gone.

      Sorry to rant. It's just really annoying that no cell company anywhere will charge as low as they say they do.

    9. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by sapgau · · Score: 1

      Virgin makes a lot of sense to me. With 200 minutes, voice mail, caller id for only $20 on their pay as you go plan.
      Once I'm done with Rogers I will switch.

      I've been deflowered too many times that not even those "special" packages they offer when you call to cancel are worth it.

    10. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by winomonkey · · Score: 0, Redundant

      So ... 75% of the slashdot readership? Are they really a company?

      Poor company, perhaps.

    11. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Last I checked Bell did as well.

    12. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by subitophoto · · Score: 1

      'everyone else is doing it' Shall we call this a monopoly then? Isn't that illegal? Every single Canadian company are charging this "CRTC tax". I think they successfully brainwashed their salesmen (they must be getting a good discount on their service...)

      How can I participate in this class action?

      c-f

    13. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Malc · · Score: 1

      Not available as GSM. Stupid backwards wireless phone system that we have.

      Do Virgin operate over here like they do in the UK, or more like the incumbents? For instance my PAYG account with Rogers expires my credit after a month, not six months like Virgin Mobile UK does. What about data rates? Just a few pence to send and receive email in the UK. Several dollars with Rogers PAYG - they're obviously trying to force people in to a monthly plan.

      That's price gouging.

    14. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Moralpanic · · Score: 1

      So you'll rather pay $8 an extra a month rather than just turn off your speakers? Interesting.

    15. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Last I checked Bell did as well. Check again (I'm shopping around for cell service these days, and Bell's additional service charge is well hidden, but it's there).
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    16. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Not available as GSM. Stupid backwards wireless phone system that we have.

      Do Virgin operate over here like they do in the UK, or more like the incumbents? For instance my PAYG account with Rogers expires my credit after a month, not six months like Virgin Mobile UK does. Check out what this other reply says http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=302703&cid=20675289
      I think you two need to talk : )

      His is the first I've heard about the notion that money you have paid them has an expiry date, the whole concept is quite alien to me.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    17. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      It's per-month in Canada? In the US, they make you add $20 every 90 days. Of course, I hardly use my cellphone, so I still have wasted money sitting in my account.

    18. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Click the mute button on the ad, troll.

    19. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by a1mint · · Score: 1

      Virgin Mobile's Nokie 6275i. Run Diego on it to hack the restrictions out of it, and I've got mp3, java, mp3 ringtones, everything.
      $10 / month, 10 cents a minute, no bs system access or Rogers' help save the towers fee.
      I can't stand Rogers, I don't like Bell's and Telus' India call center outsourcing. Branson is cool.
      Virgin Mobile in Canada ***aaaallll the way*** The other players have no hope in hell for me.
      At work, I laugh at all those contracts. I calculate how much they have to pay over 3 years. One guy is stuck with over $2500 by the time he's done.
      "But they gave me a free replacement phone". Yeah ok, after paying $2500 you'd *expect* a free phone.

      Sorry, the service plans, and system access fees are for the suckers out there.

    20. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's because you have to look at the fact that it carries over your money as a bonus, and not as you do. But it's natural to see it the way you do.

      Having a cell phone for 15$ a month is a really good deal. No one has to give you service for 5$, the price of a cappuccino. If you're like me, you get all the services with that, caller ID, voice mail! If that's still to much for you, there are generic prepaid phones you can buy. Also virgin mobile can be 10$ a month.

    21. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1
      First, instead of the $15 per month cards, get yourself a $25 3-month card. Or a $100 1 year card. Same thing. You'll be paying significantly less than $15 per month.

      Second, keep in mind that the balance in your account can be used for anything Virgin offers, including plans. If you've manage to build up a couple hundred dollars in your account, go to the My Account section of the site, and change your account type. Switch it to a $20/month with 200 minutes plan (or a $10/month, $0.10/minute plan). Drain your account a bunch. Then when you're low on account cash, switch it back to a pay-as-you-go, and buy more cards.

      Or blow your cash on $5 ringtones. Whichever is easier for you.

    22. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by callmevinny · · Score: 1

      I started pay-as-you-go with Telus and tried the $10/30 days* "top-up" trick.
      Had a nice balance ~$125 until I forgot to top-up on new years eve. Ooops.
      Felt slightly abused.

      Now I use the Virgin $100/365 days trick. Top-up once a year. I don't
      use the phone often. The math works out to about $100/12 = $8.33/month.
      Pretty cheap for a light user. The phone was inexpensive ~ $80.

      Minutes are still expensive tho'. $0.25 to $0.30/minute and
      usually double for long distance. Good cellular service options
      are few and far between in Canada.

      [*] It actually worked out to 29 days. You had to top-up on
      the expiry day but the expiry day was counted in the new 30
      days you just got. So it was double counted and you ended
      up netting 29 days max.

    23. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like to do free publicity, so I'll just say that company hasn't been deflowered nudge, nudge, wink wink, say no more. Wait there is a cellphone company in canada called SlashDot Geek
    24. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by jonathan3003 · · Score: 1

      It's not just that. It's about deceit. The cell companies led consumers to think that the system access fee was mandated by the Canadian government, when in fact it wasn't.

      http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2246/196//

    25. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Mike89 · · Score: 1

      I'm at a loss for words.
      Why? His point is, he shouldn't HAVE to disable and enable content as he surfs so that it's not ridiculous or annoying. Any website which plays music doesn't deserve your custom.

      It's like, say, a website doesn't have a navigation bar, but all the users say you just need to use a Greasemonkey script. They should be making it right, not the other way around.
    26. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

      Not everyone's doing it. I got fed up with the system access fee, amongst many many other ordeals, which is why I switched to Virgin Mobile. They use Bell's cellular towers, yet somehow they do not charge their customers any system access fee. My $25/month plan really does cost $25/month! I won't go into the sales pitch of how very much I get for those $25, but if you're interested check out www.virginmobile.ca for details. I just love 'em!

    27. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by yabos · · Score: 1

      My cell phone bill starts at $20 per month. With all the extra fees like system access fee and 911 fee and taxes it almost doubles in price to about $36-$38 per month.

    28. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by GeckoX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bell is the worst of the lot. And the system access fee is just ONE of the fees Bell throws at you.

      Try getting any bell services without paying for a landline. Go ahead...try...I'll wait. Want DSL from Bell without paying for a landline? Yeah, that'll be $20 per month, and THEN they'll let you pay for DSL on top of that.

      Not one other phone company that offers DSL does that. I cut my landline off a year ago, and they refused to truly drop it, wouldn't let me. So I cut them off completely. Called up Execulink, had their DSL installed within 12 hours...over the SAME LINE, with no actual phone service over the line whatsoever...Plus their DSL fees were cheaper to boot.

      Bell is big and dumb. Rogers is only a wee bit better...they used to be much better in a lot of ways, but they keep changing to do things the way Bell does...Well, Bell charges for it, so we should too.

      All I can say about this suit is...sign me up!!!

      --
      No Comment.
    29. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because you should really have to negotiate for freaking cell phone service.

      I won't negotiate for things like cell service...or actually, even cars. If they're asking too much for it in the first place, my business goes elsewhere. I won't play that game, and it pisses me off when companies gouge people by forcing that game down everyone's throat.

      What a fucking prick.

      --
      No Comment.
    30. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have a pay-what-is-advertised plan with Bell, which is definitely not a virgin to the telephony scene, but rather has been around the block a few times (and certainly done its turn of screwing people).

      I have no system access fees, no 911 fees, or any of that other junk. My plan costs the base price, plus any extra features I decide to buy, plus tax, period.

      So I, and many others like me, will not be (directly) affected by this lawsuit.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    31. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Virgin Mobile's Nokie 6275i. Run Diego on it to hack the restrictions out of it, and I've got mp3, java, mp3 ringtones, everything.
      $10 / month, 10 cents a minute, no bs That's pretty cool, I was wondering if they had any hurdles to access the phone's capabilities... so, they do, but you had no problem getting around them?
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    32. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by pedramnavid · · Score: 1
      I believe he's at a loss for words because he's willing to pay 6.95 a month not to hear music on a website that can be easily disabled using free software.

      But what do I know.

    33. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have a pay-what-is-advertised plan with Bell Was that a special limited time offer? All the plans I've seen on their site have Extra monthly fees System access fee - $8.95 + e9-1-1 emergency service fee - 75 :(
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    34. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      They say it's crooked. In the immortal words of Canada Bill Jones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Bill_Jones, "yeah, but it's the only game in town!"

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    35. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      Try getting Rogers high speed internet without first having Rogers cable..

    36. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Oh they'll try to force a bundle on you, but I've managed to get cable internet out of Rogers a couple of times without paying for cable.

      You can not get DSL from bell without paying for landline service. Period.
      Bell will actually try to tell you that it is technically impossible to have DSL without having phone service. No, really, they will. Rogers isn't quite that stupid as to blatantly lie to you.

      Funniest part? Give Execulink a call, you can get a cable modem OR DSL from them, which they run off of 'Rogers' cables and 'Bell's' phonelines respectively, and you won't be paying for the unused service.

      --
      No Comment.
    37. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by 666999 · · Score: 1

      I had Rogers high speed internet without cable TV for about 3 years while living in Toronto.

      It's not a problem, you just have to ignore the letters they send you every few months offering to sell you TV service for cheap.

    38. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      7-11s pay as you go plan keeps your time for 360 days.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    39. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      While the offer I got was time-limited (and actually tied to the fact that I was a student at the time of signing), I had seen billboards for Bell advertising their no-extra-fees services when Virgin came around.

      It's quite possible that they stopped offering it once Virgin was no longer the new and shiny thing it was then.

      But, it's equally possible that they (and other carriers, of course) might start offering it again if there's enough fuss about it in the media and in competitors' advertising campaigns.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    40. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by ccharles · · Score: 1

      Try getting any bell services without paying for a landline. Go ahead...try...I'll wait. Want DSL from Bell without paying for a landline? Yeah, that'll be $20 per month, and THEN they'll let you pay for DSL on top of that.
      It's interesting that you say this, because I had the exact opposite experience about a year ago (southern Ontario). Bell was able to provide me with Sympatico DSL without a landline for their regular price. A nice local ISP wasn't able to provide me with DSL if I didn't have a landline; to go with them (and I really wanted to) I would have had to pay Bell for a landline and then pay the local ISP for the DSL service.
    41. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      I have a hard time believing that, it doesn't fall in with any experience I've ever had with Bell or the indies, and doesn't fall in with the deregulatory requirements imposed. Hmm, well, I could see a local ISP doing things completely wrong by not knowing how to get access to the local CO services and tying in directly instead of just offering the 'service'...no, that doesn't make sense either, they still need the jump to their network unless they're just reselling bell DSL, which doesn't make sense.

      The only thing a local DSL provider will charge you for is if you don't actually have a suitable physical line into your home, then you will have to pay for the installation of that line...but no phone service or monthly fees.

      I've talked to regional managers at Bell about this issue, and they were hardline all the way up the chain. No phoneline payments, no DSL, period. Can't physically be done. (Lol ;))

      Odd. Hmm, might want to double check your bill to make sure you're not actually paying for the line you think you aren't! Or maybe there is some local thing going on that is outside of the norm...Bell perhaps trying to squash another potential Cogco or Execulink etc?

      Did the local ISP you were trying to deal with have cable internet available? (I'll do ANYTHING not to pay the Bell Tax ;)

      --
      No Comment.
    42. Re:Classic Bait & Switch by a1mint · · Score: 1

      Hi, there is this utility called Diego. I think you need version 3.08 or 3.09. I'm not sure about the actual versions, but you could google around see what the latest version you see people refer to. This utility is normally used by service people I think to let them access all the internal settings and configurations. This is normally hidden from the normal user. Some of the settings are more scary settings, like the transmission power I think. There's no need horsing around with those settings. The obvious setting you will want to "rig" is the ability for you to run java application jars that you upload. Normally, when you upload a jar file, it won't let you run it all all. After using Diego, you can. Also, you can't upload an mp3 and use it as a ringtone. But after doing the Diego thing, it works perfectly. There are some other settings, but for now, I'm happy that I can download Java apps and use mp3 ringtones. Great phone, by far the best one for Virgin Mobile, in Canada anyway. Their plans are the best in Canada as well - by far.

  2. Re:Just because I have to by Adam+Schumacher · · Score: 5, Informative

    You know, that would've been a lot more topical back when we weren't so close to parity.

  3. no-win by tomstdenis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Assuming the lawsuit is successful, they'll just roll the $7 fee into the base price for ALL of their plans. So my $20/mo plan will become a $26.95/mo plan. Big whoop.

    Wake me up when they stop charging $0.10 per SMS, or $0.05 per KB. I mean why is it they can afford me calling my friends after 6pm which uses roughly 9.6kbit/sec for FREE (well unlimited), but I can't send a 200 byte SMS without incurring a 10 cent charge no matter the time of day.

    Cell phones are basically a license to print money. And since Rogers and Bell are basically monopolies they can charge [and do] whatever they want. If you look at Rogers previous earnings reports, the wireless division has been making tons of profit for a long time. So strictly speaking the high fees are NOT required to stay in business, they're just fucking greedy.

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    1. Re:no-win by allthefish · · Score: 1

      One could argue that if they did drop the fees voluntary, when everyone else was still charging them, they would be able to give the same plans as other providers for a cheaper price. Imagine all the money that could bring in, form both new customers shopping around and from people fed up with their current plan, and all its hidden fees.

    2. Re:no-win by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

      Doncha know, this is what they call the miracle of an unregulated market? Why, you should be thanking Gawd Almighty that you're allowed to pay money to cell phone companies. To complain is Communistic.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:no-win by JNighthawk · · Score: 1

      SMS is a different protocol which requires a different infrastructure. The prices are high, but it's not just as easy as normal data transfer.

      --
      Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
    4. Re:no-win by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assuming the lawsuit is successful, they'll just roll the $7 fee into the base price for ALL of their plans. So my $20/mo plan will become a $26.95/mo plan. Big whoop.
      Maybe they will roll it in, maybe not. Thee is clearly an advantage in deceiving their customers, or they would not do it. If the current monthly cost is (for example) $30 (plus a fee of $7), how many fewer will sign up if the service is priced at $37/month? Clearly some will not sign up. Perhaps the companies will find it advantageous to charge something between $30 and $37/month.

      In any case, I wonder how those 2 year contract (if that is typical in Canada like it is in the US) might come back to bite the providers if they have to keep providing service for the remainder of the contract, but MINUS the "access fees"?
      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:no-win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So my $20/mo plan will become a $26.95/mo plan. Big whoop.

      Yes, but then they would need to advertise the $26.95/mo as being $26.95/mo. Currently, their "$26.95/mo" is advertised as "$20/mo", and then they tack on extra fees.

      Competition doesn't work when many of the extra fees are hidden from, as comparing plans becomes more difficult.

      If all carriers were required to advertise the true price, another company might try to attract customers by offering the same product at a lower price.

    6. Re:no-win by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My personal favorite absurd line-item in your phone bill has always been the small fee they charge you for the privelege of touch-tone dialing.

      You couldn't opt out of it if you wanted, and the phone hardware is designed to work with those tones. It's not like they've got those big mechanical things that used to physically move in response to the numbers you dialed.

      Really, what justification to charge for the ability to dial the phone with touchtones can there possibly still be? These little items are absolutely about gathering money by the bucket load.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:no-win by nahpets77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What about long distance? Why do they still charge long distance rates in this day and age where you can access sites anywhere in the world via internet? They also these weird rules like if you're roaming in another city, and someone local calls you, you pay long distance. But, if you call them, you don't because you'd be calling the same area code. How can long distance be charged depending on who intiates the call, even though you're physically in the same location in both scenarios. In any event, cell plans in Canada suck and are expensive for nothing. I even have to pay an extra $5 dollars with Rogers to get call display, a feature I got with my first cell plan years ago for free.

    8. Re:no-win by pthor1231 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They would probably just change the contract, which they are allowed to do, and then the consumers, if they are savvy. Problem is, most consumers don't: 1) thoroughly read everything that comes in their monthly bill 2) realize that the phone companies can change the contract at will 3) realize that the consumer can void the contract if the change has an adverse effect on them

    9. Re:no-win by kidcharles · · Score: 3, Interesting

      SMS is a different protocol which requires a different infrastructure. The prices are high, but it's not just as easy as normal data transfer. I've heard about this, but in my opinion, bandwidth is bandwidth. If a wireless provider is sending two signals, one of which has a throughput that is thousands of times the data rate of the other signal, yet the signal with the smaller amount of data costs them thousands of times more than the larger signal to send, they are doing something really wrong. Of course the thing that is really wrong about text messaging is not the technical implementation but the pricing, for which there is simply no excuse. It's price gouging, pure and simple, and the US providers are collectively guilty of it.
      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.
    10. Re:no-win by cstdenis · · Score: 1

      Wholesale long distance to most of the world is less than one cent a minute. Its just pure profit for them.

      --
      1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
    11. Re:no-win by athakur999 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That is BS. In GSM/UMTS networks at least, SMS messages are sent through the network via the MAP protocol and between the switch and mobile via DTAP. DTAP is required for any kind of mobile interaction and a provider must already have a MAP infrastructure in place to be able to handle practically any type of call.

      The only additional piece of equipment required to handle SMS in a network is a SMS service center. All this is a database to receive SMS messages from an originating mobile and then send them back out to terminating mobile.

      Using up bearer channels in their network for voice or data calls costs providers (both in dollars and in availability) far more than the simple signalling that SMS uses. There is no financial reason why a provider can provide unlimited voice calls but must charge $0.15 for an SMS message.

      --
      "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    12. Re:no-win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake me up when they stop charging $0.10 per SMS, MTS already stopped charging 10 cents per message a while back. They charge 15 cents now. :(
    13. Re:no-win by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      So you would rather have the illusion that you're paying $20/mo but actually pay $27/mo? The whole point of the lawsuit is that there's this hidden fee that all mobile providers charge, which the consumer doesn't know about until they get their bill. I remember one time when I inquired about $25/mo plan, and I asked the representative what my monthly bill would be, and I was told $25/mo. Sure enough, it was $32/mo. That's total bullshit. And this "system access fee" keeps increasing when profits start sagging. It used to be $4, but now it's like $7.

    14. Re:no-win by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      strictly speaking the high fees are NOT required to stay in business, they're just fucking greedy

      No shit.

      Everyone is greedy -- you, me, the companes -- that's how markets work. You're "greedy" in that you don't want to spend much money. Businesses are "greedy" in that they want to keep their prices as high as possible. A group of you get together and the optimum price point is reached, balancing resources, competition, supply and demand.

      Only when governments get involved do things get royally fucked up.

      "But, but but what about monopolies??" is the next sentence out of your mouth.

      Monopolies that are not maintained by the government are eventually eroded by market forces.

      "But why shouldn't we use the power of government to erode all monopolies prematurely?"

      This is a difficult question, but what it comes down to is ... freedom. Every power you give to the government erodes your freedom, and they aren't giving that power back, ever. Choose wisely.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    15. Re:no-win by AArmadillo · · Score: 1

      Exactly. These charges are there and people are still paying them, so obviously they are not excessive. If the charges were too high, why would people pay them? Obviously the charges are considered reasonable for the provided services (or, the people on these plans are mentally unstable and continue to pay prices they deem unreasonable for the services provided even though they have no obligation to do so?).

    16. Re:no-win by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Why don't you just pay for the stuff you use? Looking at your latest tax report, there's plenty of income left at the end of each year. Oh well, you're probably just fucking greedy.

      Seriously though, the reason they can offer free (or cheaper) calls after 6 pm is that the there's a huge drop in business use of voice service, so there's a lot of extra capacity which they use to either recover some revenue by increasing volume of non-business users, or use unlimited calls to attract customers.

      I don't have any actual data, but I'm quite sure that SMS usage is much more evenly distributed (14 year old girls don't just stop after any particular time), so there's no reason to change prices dependign on time of the day.

    17. Re:no-win by spikestabber · · Score: 1

      Not only do you have to pay for "call display", you also have to pay extra for to see the "name" showing up on call display. Talk about insane.

    18. Re:no-win by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      I mean why is it they can afford me calling my friends after 6pm which uses roughly 9.6kbit/sec for FREE

      I could be wrong, being that I am not a telecommunications engineer, but I seem to remember that SMS and text messaging was treated differently from voice by the GSM and CDMA technologies. It has to do with bandwidth allocated for different types of uses by the network whereby voice receives the largest portion of the bandwidth while SMS and text operates on the "command" channel which is more limited in bandwidth and therefore commands (pun intended) a higher price per use than one minute of voice conversation. It would seem that such concerns would be largely eliminated in a VOIP digital network (since data is data after all...voice, video, or text) so this may be a holdover from the days when cell phones were using analog networks? Perhaps someone with greater knowledge of the cell networks could better answer this question in detail, but I believe that the crux of the matter lies in the separate treatment of voice, data, and text by the network providers resulting in asymmetric usage pricing.

    19. Re:no-win by jadm · · Score: 1

      Either that, or every cell phone provider tacks similar charges, thereby forcing customers to accept the charge or stay away from cells.

    20. Re:no-win by Kineticabstract · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a very pat answer - and a typical reply for those who worship at the altar of "free market". In your world, this is a simple supply/demand equation, and the answer is very black and white.

      The problem is, there's a huge difference between "reasonable pricing" and "too high, but I have to pay it if I want the service". One is fair, the other is borderline extortion. Ask my cable provider about that one. I can choose to not have any cable, or I can choose to pay too much. My choice. I grant you that it's a luxury rather than a necessity. After all, I could choose to live in my car to save on rent, or walk four hours to get to work rather than pay my car payment. Life is a continual, delicate balance between what we want and what we need, and it's all just a matter of prioritizing.

      The issue with the cell phone providers is this: While I can choose a different provider and pick the cheapest plan I can find, in my opinion ALL of the available plans are over-priced. I go with the cheapest plan that I can while still having what I'd call a reasonable service. Still, it takes a large chunk out of my take home pay. They're walking that fine line of charging me enough to make obscene profits, while not charging so much that I simply can't squeeze the money out of my paycheck. Another fine example of corporate America doing what it can to keep the shareholders and CEOs happy at the expense of the average worker. It's called greed, and greed is what makes your lovely little free market work so well--at least for those who sit at the top of it.

      In the supply/demand equation, price should go down if supply goes up. For the cell phone companies, supply simply isn't an issue. Demand only comes into play at the bottom line. The old formulas don't apply here.

    21. Re:no-win by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The problem is, there's a huge difference between "reasonable pricing" and "too high, but I have to pay it if I want the service". One is fair, the other is borderline extortion.
      So you're saying the government should intervene and make everyone price their products "fairly"?

      Fair by whose standards? Paris Hilton's? Or that homeless guy on the street corner with the bottle of Listerine and the "fuck you" hat?

      While we're at it, what gives you the right to sell your personal property at any price you chose? Shouldn't you have to apply for government assessment before placing your used iPod for sale on e-bay?

      I can choose to not have any cable, or I can choose to pay too much. My choice.
      Wow, you DO understand capitalism! Amazing. So what exactly are you complaining about again?

      There's a reason I don't own a cell-phone, and don't have cable TV either. Not only am I not satisfied with the quality of most services, but I'm also unwilling to pay their prices. The solution is simple. I can assure you that I am NOT suffering in horrible agony without a cell and basic cable. In fact, I find it just leaves me with more time to do thing which ENRICH my life. So if you think I'm going to bring in Big Brother to start telling people how much they can sell stuff for just so I can buy another electronic gadget for a bit cheaper, you're friggin' nuts.
    22. Re:no-win by Random+Destruction · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I always wanted to call them up and cancel the touch-tone portion of my service.

      Then I just switched to VOIP instead :P

      --
      :x
    23. Re:no-win by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Rogers and Bell aren't monopolies. They're not even the big player. Telus (formerly Alberta Government Telephones) competes with both as well as constantly acquiring phone networks in far flung parts of the world because there isn't enough for them to eat here in Canada.

      Not that Telus is better. Worse actually. Still, the problem isn't monopoly, it's collusion.

    24. Re:no-win by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Assuming the lawsuit is successful, they'll just roll the $7 fee into the base price for ALL of their plans.

      Which is as it should be.

      They shouldn't be allowed to advertise free phones on a 19.95/per month plan where they charge you $20.00 to activate the phone and and that 19.95 plan after all the fees they tack on ends up over 30.00/month.

      If they simply honestly advertised it as a $20 phone with $30/mo fees, I'd have no issue with it.

    25. Re:no-win by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you live, but I think they took that off the phone bills quite a few years ago. Actually, what they will charge extra for is if you want pulse dialing. I think they still offer it in some places.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    26. Re:no-win by Kineticabstract · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You know what I'm missing? The word "government" anywhere in my post. Did I SAY that I wanted big brother to step in and enforce controls? Did I say that I need someone to hold my hand while I spend my money? Why don't you leap to a couple of more conclusions, tard. What am I complaining about? I think I made that fairly clear. Two things: 1) corporations that like to squeeze every penny out of me that they can, and 2) jackasses who think that throwing the words "free market" into any argument somehow makes 1) not happen. Congratulations on your obvious superiority. Twit.

    27. Re:no-win by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Uh... no. Sufficiently large monopolies (not small regional monopolies) and oligopolies are almost never ended by market forces. I don't see the government propping up Microsoft, and they've basically been a monopoly for two decades.

      Monopolies are only destroyed by market forces if it is practical for someone else to enter the field. In most fields, the startup costs are so extreme that once a monopoly player is entrenched, it isn't practical to topple them. There are three main reasons for this:

      1. Interconnectivity/compatibility requirement: With phone companies, software companies, etc., it is necessary for you to be able to exchange information with people using a different service. It is not in the monpolist's interests to allow you to connect your service to theirs, and thus, the competitor cannot enter the market at all.
      2. Substantial R&D or infrastructure investment: In the case of phone companies, the costs of rolling out the lines are huge and don't pay off for decades. In the case of computer companies, trying to compete against Microsoft would require an OS that's better, which would take hundreds of man-years of R&D, and wouldn't pay off for decades after the product became available.
      3. Universality requirement: With phone companies, you can't pick and choose where you want to provide service and only provide in a neighborhood here and a neighborhood there. You pretty much have to roll it out across a large area. With software, again, you can't pick and choose which customers you want to provide for because without a sufficient market base, developers won't write software for your product, and without software, you can't get a sufficient market base. Thus, you really need to be able to reasonably address at least the basic needs of a fairly broad market just to get off the ground, and you need to do so simultaneously from the onset of availability.

      There are probably many more reasons than that, but those are the three most obvious reasons why what you suggest should happen almost never actually does.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    28. Re:no-win by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Yeah. That would be awesome. That's exactly what I want -- to pay the price they sold me the service for. Moreover, that's exactly what the lawsuit is about.

      This is a general problem with "fees". A charge applied to all customers is not a fee -- IT'S A PRICE. I mean, could you say "One dollar a month for cell phone service!" and then have a forty dollar fee? No? Why not? Today I pay about $11 per month to my cell company in fees, on a sixty dollar plan.

      Same problem with airfare. Ever notice that "9/11 anti-terrorism fee"? What the fuck is that? How can I avoid paying this "fee", and if there is no way, then why the shit is it a line item instead of being rolled into the price? If you're going to split out the cost of security, why not split out the cost of, say, the airline seat? the airplane itself? Maybe a gangplank fee?

      This is different than a *cost*. If an airline wants to charge me a dollar for a soda pop, then that pisses me off, but I'm not going to get all indignant about it. That's a cost. I'll pay it if I want the soda. I can avoid the cost if I want to. Imagine if airlines charged a "meal fee" but then charged you whether you ate or not. That would be a fee! It would be part of the fucking cost!

    29. Re:no-win by c6gunner · · Score: 0, Troll

      Congratulations on your obvious superiority.
      Thanks!

      In the future, if you need help figuring out how to better express yourself, feel free to ask. I'd be more than happy to proof-read your posts for you. We wouldn't want you implying unintentionally things that you don't mean.

      Other than that, that was some first-class pointless whining! Keep up the good work!
    30. Re:no-win by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 1

      There is no financial reason why a provider can provide unlimited voice calls but must charge $0.15 for an SMS message.

      First, I wanted to say that I agree with your post. Just playing Devil's Advocate, here...

      It is possible that they charge for the SMS not because it COSTS more, but because:
      a) It is accepted by the customer
      b) By charging it, they can off-set the costs of the cell calls, so they can offer "free" minutes to more people.

      Basically, they could be shifting the costs of running the network as a whole around to people who mind less paying the fee from people who'd jump ship if forced to absorb the cost.

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
    31. Re:no-win by Jardine · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you live, but I think they took that off the phone bills quite a few years ago. Actually, what they will charge extra for is if you want pulse dialing. I think they still offer it in some places.

      Bell Canada still charges it where I live. I think it's about $2 per month.

    32. Re:no-win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard about this, but in my opinion, bandwidth is bandwidth.

      Not really. There is a control channel and a data channel. SMS goes by the control channel.

      It's price gouging, pure and simple, and the US providers are collectively guilty of it.

      Yes. It's not much consolation, but the Canadian providers are even worse.

    33. Re:no-win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know where you live, but I think they took that off the phone bills quite a few years ago.

      I live in Montreal, Quebec, and Bell Canada still charges $2.50 or so for touchtone.

    34. Re:no-win by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1
      You're correct. The difference is between the control channel and the data channel. The control channel is a much more limited resource than the data channels that carry voice. This is why the price of voice minutes are often quite cheap or free, while providers continue to charge for text messaging.

      http://communication.howstuffworks.com/sms.htm

      Even if you are not talking on your cell phone, your phone is constantly sending and receiving information. It is talking to its cell phone tower over a pathway called a control channel. The reason for this chatter is so that the cell phone system knows which cell your phone is in, and so that your phone can change cells as you move around. Every so often, your phone and the tower will exchange a packet of data that lets both of them know that everything is OK.

      Your phone also uses the control channel for call setup. When someone tries to call you, the tower sends your phone a message over the control channel that tells your phone to play its ringtone. The tower also gives your phone a pair of voice channel frequencies to use for the call.

      The control channel also provides the pathway for SMS messages. When a friend sends you an SMS message, the message flows through the SMSC, then to the tower, and the tower sends the message to your phone as a little packet of data on the control channel. In the same way, when you send a message, your phone sends it to the tower on the control channel and it goes from the tower to the SMSC and from there to its destination.

    35. Re:no-win by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      My mother still has a rotary dial phone in her house. Yes, that's her phone. Yes, it still works fine.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    36. Re:no-win by dgmartin98 · · Score: 1

      I used to fret about:
      - gas prices
      - cell phone system access fees
      - bank ATM & monthly service fees

      Each of these industries have been increasing their profit margins over the past 5-10 years. So, what's the solution?

      Buy stocks in:
      - oil companies
      - cell phone providers
      - banks

      Then you can share a small piece of the profits that offsets the amount I pay to each of these industries as a consumer. Plus, I collect a little bit of the profit that these companies make on each of the other consumers. I then end up with a net gain in my finances when oil prices go up, either through dividends or market value of the stock.

      Of course, if I successfully convince you of this idea, then hopefully you'll go out and buy some stock in my oil company, and send the market value higher. :-)

      --
      FPGA, Wireless, ASIC, Verilog, VHDL, HW, 10yr exp, Team Lead, Ottawa (More? Email above. slashdotusername=dgmartin98 )
    37. Re:no-win by Kineticabstract · · Score: 1

      You're too kind. By the way, it's called "inferring", when performed by the reader; as in this case, when you inferred an attack on an entire economic system out of a simple statement.

    38. Re:no-win by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Everyone is greedy? Speak for yourself. There is a difference between greed and profit. I profit from my work to the extent legitimately required to pay for a car, rent, insurance, food, etc. Greedy would be demanding a salary that is multiple times larger than your reasonable living expenses. That's greedy.

      Rogers, like Bell and banks for that matter, profits by a hell of a lot more than a trivial percentage point. And it isn't like they distribute the profits evenly amongst employees either. Otherwise, why would they shell out for the cheapest, most incompetent tech support? Or have shitty installation service, or service outages for that matter.

      The truth of the matter is the purpose of companies like them is to make a very select few, excessively rich. To them, paying dividends on stocks, or salaries to employees is just a bother, not a goal.

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    39. Re:no-win by pomakis · · Score: 1

      Assuming the lawsuit is successful, they'll just roll the $7 fee into the base price for ALL of their plans. So my $20/mo plan will become a $26.95/mo plan. Big whoop.

      In my opinion, it is a big whoop. It means that that their pricing mechanism would no longer be misleading. Right now they're saying "Our prices are great! Look, we only charge $20 a month (plus a couple of fees that are out of our control)." They hide some of the real cost in the sidelines behind a bogus "fee" just to make the cost of the plan look smaller. Ticketmaster does this too (with ridiculously high "service fees"), and I think it's very dishonest.

    40. Re:no-win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you clown. Seriously, go piss up a rope. You're being a complete fucking prick for absolutely no good reason whatsoever. Look, we all know that you are a vastly superior being to all of us and that we're complete morons for not living our lives out exactly as you do and having the exact same beliefs as you, so give us some slack mmkay? Now go stroke yourself some more...preferably somewhere a bit more private.

    41. Re:no-win by chrish · · Score: 1

      That's not how MBAs think though. If their numbers dropped for a month because of the price reduction (while the advertising ramps up and before the wave of new customers comes in), they'd have a fit.

      Still wondering where I sign up for this class-action suit; we've got two phones, and have been paying this "support the monopoly" fee for 7-10 years now.

      --
      - chrish
    42. Re:no-win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since Rogers and Bell are basically monopolies

      Given that there are two isn't this exact definition of NOT a monopoly?

    43. Re:no-win by Pingmaster · · Score: 1

      It's simple and has been partially touched on already. Even though it's more data to make a voice call, it's still essentially free money to the phone company once the infrastructure is in place. What they want you to do is run out of minutes so they can charge you the $0.25/min extra. Therefore, they encourage you to use SMS at $0.15, but at the same time, the charge for messaging, however small, will encourage people to make voice calls and creep ever closer to the point when they have to pay out the nose.

      I've worked for cell companies before, i've seen $2k phone bills. Almost always the customer said 'well it seemed cheaper than sending text messages...'

    44. Re:no-win by jagdish · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile in India Reliance keeps cutting SMS rates. It is currently at INR 0.90. For the mathematically retarded, 0.90 Rupees~0.02 USD (Which is the same as 0.02cents if you are Verizon.)

      And they also have unlimited SMS plans for around 2 USD. Want unlimited Internet on phone? That'll be another 3 USD. And it is perfectly normal to have a plan which does not have all these service and cost 5 USD/month. (4 of those 5 dollars are for talktime and 1 dollar service charge, tax etc)

    45. Re:no-win by kalaf · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is a 3rd option. Before I switched to Virgin (which originally was going to cost $5 a month, but I think they've changed their billing slightly) I was paying $13 a month with Rogers for 120 minutes a month (all fees included) because I called them up and said "I don't need a $30 plan, give me a $9 one (to which access fees were added...) or I'm cancelling my contract. They gave me a $9 plan with reduced minutes rather than lose me completely right then and there.

      I cancelled my satellite TV (with Bell), they asked why, and I said it wasn't worth the money. They called back a day later and asked if I'd keep the subscription at a 50% discount. Although I still think $20 a month is more than TV access is worth to me, I accepted.

      These companies understand take-what-we-can economics. They charge what is slightly less than criminal, and you have to call them on it. That said, I'm deadly serious when I talk with them (i.e. I WILL cancel the service unless...) and in other situations I've chosen nothing over a contract I consider to be overpriced.

    46. Re:no-win by RoyBoy · · Score: 1

      Nice summary. However, I have to disagree with your example of Microsoft as a monopoly that has not been propped up by the government. Need I remond you (or anyone else here) that while Microsoft may have gained their monopoly through the free market (sans any realistic regulation), they have been tried AND CONVICTED of maintaining and extending an illegal monopoly in bith the US and EU. It's only through the machinations of transparent greed and widespread corruption that the US DoG essentially gave up on enforcing their win against the evil emipre in Redmond.

      How about we try using a better example - like ConAgra, or MCI/Worldcom, or Enron or ... oh wait, neither "the free market" nor the government ever successfully prevented any of these companies from competing illegally or screwing over their customers and/or competitors. In fact, I would argue that there is clear evidence that over the past two decades, the major focus of American governments has been to dismantle regulatory frameworks, defang anti-trust and anti-competitive legislation, and to further entrench the legal protections afforded to incumbent large corporations. I specifically defy anyone here to provide concrete examples to the contrary.

      Oh and yes I know, this is /. and I'm likely to get either patted on the back as a good anti-M$ basher or flamed for once again pointing out the horrors of the Microsoft way...

      --
      -- People who think they know it all, really annoy those of us who do!
    47. Re:no-win by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Propping up is not the same thing as failing to tear down. Tearing down would be market manipulation. The folks who say that the market will magically fix everything generally consider tearing down a monopoly or penalizing it to be a bad thing because they think the market should somehow fix it without interference from the government.

      Beyond that, though, I agree with you about the dismantling of regulation by the government. It has turned things into a pretty awful mess. Bear in mind, though, that most of that has been done in the name of "removing government intervention in the free market".... :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    48. Re:no-win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So my $20/mo plan will become a $26.95/mo plan. Big whoop.
      Or 36.95 or even more?

      My Rogers was sold to me as "25$ for 250 anytime minutes, sign for 2 years and get a free phone" I know I do less than 100 so fine.

      Here is my Jully month, you can imagine my surprise when I got my first bill many months ago:

      Thanks for using ROGERS cellular phone service (we love your money)
      25.00$: "250 Anytime minutes"
      00.50$: 911 service (others charges up to 2.50 for this)
      06.95$: Wireless system Access Fee (???)
      10.00$: Wireless Service Kit (???? I own my phone, never received any Kit)
      00.00$: 112Min Air-time (first 250 free)
      02.10$: Long distance fees

      Total: 44.55+tx = 50.76 ==> I expected 27.10$+tx not 50$

      In addition with taxes the "Extra 16.95$" is actually 19.40$ out of my pocket. 465.60 over the 2 year contract.

      Then, stuck in a contract and unable to keep my number if I switched carrier until recently, I just switch to Virgin (no contract, waiting eagerly to look at my first invoice).

    49. Re:no-win by RoyBoy · · Score: 1

      Ok, I agree that propping up is not the same as tearing down. I guess I should have been broader in my analysis. Let's see what happened in the case of each of the previous examples I mentioned:

      1. ConAgra - Begun as a small Nebraska flour milling opertion, and through massive government subsidization and lack of oversight into leverages buyouts grew to be the largest supplier of packages food in North America.

      2. MCI/Worldcom - Started out as a Long Distance reseller, grew through leveraged boyouts of everyone in sight, misappropriated US $11 billion from stockholders beforing going bankrupt, paying a mere $750 million i n restitution, and was then bailed out by being granted a no-bid contract by the Bush Administration to construct a wireless network in Iraq for, you guesed it, US$11 billion.

      3. Enron - Let's see, buying government intervention to create an "open market" for electricity, then manipulating this market in CA and surrounding states, falsifying earnings, and lying to the SEC to make untold billions. All done with the implicit and/or explicit consent and assistance of state and federal governments.

      4. Microsoft - Let's not even go there.

          So much for the idea of "free market emergent monopolies", and/or the idea of independantly sustainable monopoly power in a truly free market. The government (and by this I primarily refer to US federal and state governments) have helped to create, sustain and defend these modern robber-barons because it helps line their electoral coffers.

      As with most things in life, if you want the truth, you have to follow the money...

      --
      -- People who think they know it all, really annoy those of us who do!
    50. Re:no-win by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      MCI was was never a monopoly. At best, it is a secondary player in a monopoly-controlled world (controlled by AT&T). If anything, the fact that the government had to prop the up to keep them alive is further proof of just how hard it is to break into the telecom field and survive against the entrenched regional Bell monopolies.

      Likewise, Enron was never a monopoly. A major player, yes, but nowhere close to a monopoly.

      I don't see what this has to do with the question of whether large monopolies are hard to slay once entrenched. I'm not even sure what it has to do with whether monopolies emerge on their own.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    51. Re:no-win by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      There are probably many more reasons than that, but those are the three most obvious reasons why what you suggest should happen almost never actually does.

      I don't care if it hardly ever happens. Monopolies themselves hardly ever happen and are hardly ever sustained, that's why you can't name too many longstanding monopolies. The fact is, it does happen.

      And the one entity you seem to want to help break down the monopoly -- the government -- is usually the one that prevents markets from working to that end in the first place. Witness the 700Mhz spectrum auction. This could provide major competition to all existing communications companies. Do you think the FCC will handle it in the best way for competition?

      Oh no, the entrenched phone companies have a monopoly in Canada. Oops, here comes WiFi, VoIP, etc., etc. to gum up the works after all...

      But why wait a few years, let's get the government involved. They're "here to help," after all.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    52. Re:no-win by lborsato · · Score: 1

      Actually as I recall, SMS messages are sent as the payload in SS7 protocol messages that are used for normal call setup and teardown, so they are essentially free since the protocol is there either way.

  4. So many charges... by danomac · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've always wondered about that fee. I remember when I first got a cell phone eons ago, when I signed up for a plan and the first bill did not jive with the plan. I didn't remember paying a large fee for my landline so I phoned them and got quite upset at first. After that I noticed that the sales reps tell you there is an "access charge" which by now shouldn't need to exist.

    It is also interesting that Bell raised their fees. Good thing I don't use them as my cell phone carrier.

  5. Not so bad by Fx.Dr · · Score: 1

    From TFA: Here are the monthly subscriber access fees charged by Canada's major cellphone providers:

    * Rogers Wireless: $6.95
    * Telus Mobility: $6.95
    * Bell Mobility: $8.95, after a recent $2 increase


    Well, at least they're not AT&T...

    1. Re:Not so bad by tantaliz3 · · Score: 1

      I ask, What is it for? What does it cover? System access? What is the subscription fee for if not to Access the system?
      In my mind they are charging for the same thing Twice.

    2. Re:Not so bad by mauriceh · · Score: 1

      Actually AT&T WERE in Canada, then sold their GSM network to Sprint, who then sold it to Rogers.

      Once upon a time they sold a "North America One Rate" plan with flat fee,
      and no roaming or long distance in Canada, Mexico and USA.
      I was on it.
      About 3 months after Rogers took over I started getting roaming fee bills for my use on trips to the US of $0.95 per minute, and long distance bills of around $0.50 a minute.
      My first bill like that had about $200 in extra incorrect charges.
      After an hour on the phone they agreed that if I faxed a letter showing my plan and requesting they refund the overcharges, they would credit my account.
      So I did, and they did.
      Next month: Same story, same procedure.
      After a few months I aggressively pursued them on this, and they basically told me to "F&&& off" and all I could do
      each month was to jump through their hoops
      Finally March 14, 2007 rolled around, and we had Canadian cell phone number portability.
      I immediately jumped to Virgin Mobile Canada.
      NO Network fees, $20 a month flat rate for 200 minutes.
      And I bought a Nokia 6275i which cost me $179, and they credited me back that full $179 after I was with them for 3 months.

      So, moral of the story:
      Rogers ARE assholes.
      Their service is horrible
      They do NOT need the network fee
      Virgin proves it.
      They have good service

      The only drawback is Virgin are CDMA, so my fancy Motorola Linux GSM phone is no use to me any more..

      --
      Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
    3. Re:Not so bad by dadragon · · Score: 1

      The only drawback is Virgin are CDMA, so my fancy Motorola Linux GSM phone is no use to me any more..

      Of course Virgin uses CDMA. Virgin is just a Bell reseller, so they use whatever network bell would roam onto.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    4. Re:Not so bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually AT&T WERE in Canada, then sold their GSM network to Sprint, who then sold it to Rogers.

      Not really. Canadian law says that large telecom companies must be majority Canadian-owned*. Rogers used to call themselves "Rogers AT&T", and they had a joint venture with AT&T, but the value of the AT&T brand in Canada isn't very high.

      If you're an old fart like me, you remember Rogers Cantel.

      While I like to have a successful domestic telecom industry, the lack of competition in Canadian telecom is appalling.

    5. Re:Not so bad by rebelcan · · Score: 1

      I'm forgoing my right to mod up you up, because I just have to say I agree with you. Thanks to the way Rogers aquirred their cell network, I consider them the devil. Why? Let's see.

      * I can go into a Rogers Video store and pay my bill. But I can't find out how much I owe, or change features on my plan.
      * I can go into a Rogers Wireless store and do... jack shit. You can sign up for a phone, but you can't pay your bill there. Or find out how much you owe.
      * I can call and wait twenty minutes ( or more ) to do it on the phone.
      * I could do it online, but I find their site something of a headache to navigate.

      All this since all the billing has to go through Cingular ( I think. Probably wrong about the company, but I know it goes through someone else ), Rogers can't take care of it themselves.

      I've been wanting to cancel for a while now, but since I'm close to the end of my three year contract ( I think ), I might just stick it out so I don't have to pay the $20/month-till-end-of-contract-up-to-two-hundred-dollars cancellation fee.

      The worst part is, I want to get the OpenMoko Neo1973, but it's a GSM phone... and the only GSM provider in my area is Rogers. All I want is a smartphone that has built in wifi so I can use skype when I'm near a hotspot, damnit. I might just go with the Palm Treo 700wx ( I'll have to buy a wifi card for it, oh well ), just so I can sign up with a plan with Telus.

      --
      God is dead -- Nietzsche
      Nietzsche is dead -- God
      Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
    6. Re:Not so bad by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1
      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
  6. Re:Just because I have to by PFAK · · Score: 1

    9 Canadian dollars = 8.775351 U.S. dollars

    --

    Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
  7. Ooh, Can we Down That Here in the USA? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    That'd be nifty. I'm sure you could accuse them of price fixing, collusion and deceptive business practices at the very least. I bet there's a case to be made there, for 12 BILLION DOLLARS!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Ooh, Can we Down That Here in the USA? by Curtman · · Score: 1

      I bet there's a case to be made there, for 12 BILLION DOLLARS!

      Is that U.S. or Canadian dollars? Or right, it doesn't matter anymore. :)
    2. Re:Ooh, Can we Down That Here in the USA? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I think when you reach the point of exceeding ten billion dollars, you are now in the "shitload" category ... and it really doesn't matter.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  8. Re:Just because I have to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To quote XE.com

    12,000,000,000.00 CAD
    =
    11,819,048,612.17 USD

  9. Re:Worthwhile Canadian Lawsuit by s.bots · · Score: 1

    If these 30,000 are all located in Saskatchewan, that would be ~3% of the total population of the province.

  10. Wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The suit alleges that in selling the fee, representatives and company personal presented it as a regulatory fee rather than a non-regulatory fee.

    1. Re:Wrong! by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I remember when I got my first cell phone around 1996, Clearnet at the time (now Telus), made it very, very clear that this was a government regulatory fee.

    2. Re:Wrong! by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At that time, it was. The point of the suit is that it isn't anymore, and yet the companies are still saying it is, and using that lie to justify charging it.

      --
      Stasis is death. Embrace change.
    3. Re:Wrong! by acdc_rules · · Score: 5, Informative

      Finally, it took a while to find a post like this, but this is the actual reason for the suit. I am one of the plaintiffs listed in the certification document and a few years ago i was called to a discovery meeting in toronto. i am happy to see this suit finally moving along. the $6.95 was described as a government lic. fee. it is not. the money all goes into the same pot as the other money they collect. they also have a witness from one of the cell phone co.s who was an employee and was told to mislead customers in the description of the so-called service fee. of course, the whole plan was to show a lower entry price.

  11. Re:Just because I have to by nahpets77 · · Score: 2, Informative
  12. Re:Just because I have to by king-manic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So thats what... $5, $6 American?

    Currently just a few cents under parity. Wait a year and you may be looking at 1.25 greenbacks per loonie. As the trend has gone that way. We went from ~0.69 greenbacks per loonies to 0.98 greenbacks per loonie.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  13. 3 Year Contracts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if the lawsuit is won, you poor Canucks will still have those dreadful 3-year lock-in contracts too.

    1. Re:3 Year Contracts by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Even if the lawsuit is won, you poor Canucks will still have those dreadful 3-year lock-in contracts too. We don't have them now. You only have them if you want a discount on your phone. Breaking your contract basically costs you the price of the phone, about $200...
      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  14. Sask. Only? by Wolvie+MkM · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't suppose this is a Canada wide lawsuit? And if so how do I get in on it?

    I've been with Clearnet/Telus for nearly 10 years and apparently been handing free money to them... Good Times...

    --
    I Like Pie...
  15. Price control by Arthur+B. · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If the price is too high, it's called price gouging
    If the price is too low, it's called predatory pricing
    It the price is just the same, it's called price fixing

    How convenient a system where anyone doing business is guilty :)

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
    1. Re:Price control by king-manic · · Score: 1

      If the price is too high, it's called price gouging
      If the price is too low, it's called predatory pricing
      It the price is just the same, it's called price fixing

      How convenient a system where anyone doing business is guilty :)


      Relative to cost.

      price > aggregated Cost x10 : gouging/premium market
      Price aggregated Cost : Predatory pricing
      Price of major competitor A == Price of all other major competitors : Price fixing

      It's easy to tell market forces from monopoly powered gouging/undercutting/price fixing. They do not overlap all conditions and the common case aught not and does not fall within those bounds.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    2. Re:Price control by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Your comment is not interesting, despite what someone tagged it. It is instead an off topic comment that tries to change the focus from the real wrong to greed.

      Price gouging is not illegal except in certain circumstnaces. I.E. It is price gouging only if there is some kind of emergency going on.

      Same for predatory pricing. To be predatory pricing it must be an attempt to remove a smaller competitor and the bigger company must be taking a LOSS on the price.

      Price fixing only occures when an actual agreement occures not to compete on price. ---------------- But all of that is crap, because the lawsuit is NOT about the price Yeah, the consumers want the lower price, but that is not what the legal action is about at all. This particular case should really be called false advertising. They advertise one price and then really charge you a higher one. That is wrong ALL the time. No if's, no and's, no buts.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    3. Re:Price control by neoform · · Score: 1

      Poor poor telcos.. they just can't get a break, can they.. why can't we just leave them alooone!

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    4. Re:Price control by Mitreya · · Score: 1
      If the price is too high, it's called price gouging
      If the price is too low, it's called predatory pricing
      It the price is just the same, it's called price fixing
      How convenient a system where anyone doing business is guilty :)

      Although I find your general argument curious and not without merit, explain to me how does your categorisation apply to:
      If the price is a lie.
      No one is arguing that 27.95 is too high or too low, but advertising 19.99 plan and charging 27.95 should be illegal.

    5. Re:Price control by sco08y · · Score: 1

      Did you see the post claiming that the telecom industry is unregulated and a free market? I loved that one.

    6. Re:Price control by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Canada also has a law that the actual price you will pay (before taxes) MUST be the largest one printed on any advertisement of a product or service. I've always wondered how the cell phone companies manage to get away with quoting one price and then adding all kinds of fees.

    7. Re:Price control by pbaer · · Score: 1

      Actually price gouging during an emergency is a _good_ thing, as it discourages people from buying more than they need(hoarding) "just in case". When prices don't sharply rise during emergencies, limited supplies are quickly bought out by a small group of people and the rest are fucked. Sure it sucks if a pack of batteries is $30.0 but that is much better than not being able to get any batteries at any cost to power your emergency radio or whatever you need it for. This is hard on poor people, but at least they have the option to pool their money to share some batteries as opposed to no batteries whatsoever.

      --
      There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
  16. A million Canadians by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

    Glad to hear that. The polar bears seem to be running out of room up north. It's good to know they'lll have something to eat.

    1. Re:A million Canadians by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Glad to hear that. The polar bears seem to be running out of room up north. It's good to know they'lll have something to eat.

      The North Pole, magnetic North and Santa are all on Canadian territory. Keep making fun of us and you'll be paying user fees for all of them.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    2. Re:A million Canadians by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1
      We've got a trigger-happy dictat...president, an apathetic populace, and a military-industrial complex with no stop button. Charging us user fees should be the least of your concerns ;)

  17. Re:Worthwhile Canadian Lawsuit by renehollan · · Score: 1
    LOL.

    Yeah, I can take a joke (picture an over-taxed Canuck getting his green card and exclaiming "I'm free, I'm free!").

    Anyway, the Inuit crack is actually ironic: the vast, barren, Canadian north drove the manufacture and launching of the first TV satellites so the Inuit could get TV.

    --
    You could've hired me.
  18. Re:Just because I have to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't been watching the value of your dollars I take it?

    When the fed next helps its friends on wall street the 1 CAD will be worth > 1 USD.

  19. Re:Just because I have to by tacokill · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yep, and Canadian products will become more "expensive" to Americans (therefore, less goods are sold). Additionally, US products will become cheaper for Canadians (therefore, more of our goods get sold to you)....

    It doesn't matter. The point is: currency values mean very little unless you trade them or are measuring inflation. Any more analysis is a discussion of macro-economic theory and world money supply. A topic best left to the economists.

  20. Re:Worthwhile Canadian Lawsuit by abigor · · Score: 0, Troll

    The population of Canada is around 35 million, about the same as the state of California. I know it's too much to ask an American to have some sort of international awareness, even for their closest neighbour, trading partner, and largest oil source, so I'm not holding your doltish comment against you.

  21. Re:Worthwhile Canadian Lawsuit by Wolvie+MkM · · Score: 4, Funny

    (picture an over-taxed Canuck getting his green card and exclaiming "I'm free, I'm free!")

    ... then was abruptly shot when his excitement startled a gun-toting American ;)
    --
    I Like Pie...
  22. Not "Gouging" by GrayNimic · · Score: 1

    "Price Gouging" is for life-essentials - like food, water, shelter. A cellphone plan isn't a life essential. The merchants may be overcharging, and there may need to be legal action against them, but they're not _gouging_. Keep that term for when people are going to die without the goods.

    (Yes, increased communication can save lives, but that does not appear to be the tack the court case is going with, and I would argue that cellphones are still on a different tier from sustinance and protection from the elements)
    </Pet-Peeve>

    1. Re:Not "Gouging" by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Remember that this is Canada, and not the USA. Estonia ruled that Internet was a basic human right, and so if someone is unfairly instituting a price on it without justification, then that's price gouging.

      If Canada rules that Cellular service is an essential requirement do life in this day and age, then it could be price gouging.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    2. Re:Not "Gouging" by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      Keep that term for when people are going to die without the goods.

      That's just what you think, and what Florida's legal department thinks. But that's just describing where it happens, not what it is. A more obvious, and useful definition is the one that everybody else operates with - that a limited resource is being sold for much higher than free market forces would dictate. This comes up most often when resources are inflexible, like food, but also like transportation and communication (at least, to a certain point).

      Obviously, demand for essentials is more inflexible than demand for nonessential goods, but that's no reason to say that you can't price gouge nonessential goods. A certain portion of the population "needs" their morning coffee, and those people ensure that the demand for coffee doesn't go below a certain threshold.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    3. Re:Not "Gouging" by Temposs · · Score: 1

      However, whether or not you consider a cell phone to be a life essential, the effect is still the same. People in our society are increasingly using cell phones as their sole mode of remote voice communication, and there is an extent to which having a cell phone is like any other utility charge you pay(rent, electric, internet). If people are going to get cell phone service *no matter what*, which is what the mindset is for anyone at least in the middle class, then the phone companies have effectively the same leverage in setting whatever price pleases them. There is a limit to this, as there is a limit to the price of bread before people start buying rice, but they obviously have not reached this limit, as cell phone use is certainly still gaining adoption and not losing any but in the margins.

      --
      Knowledge is just opinion that you trust enough to act upon. -Orson Scott Card
    4. Re:Not "Gouging" by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Does Florida law apply to Canadian law? I'm just asking... I'm sure I've insulted enough Canadians by demanding them to say Zee instead of Zed when they are spelling something phonetically.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    5. Re:Not "Gouging" by Opie812 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure I've insulted enough Canadians by demanding them to say Zee instead of Zed when they are spelling something phonetically.

      I'll be in Florida next month, and I'm going to come oot and beat you aboot the head.

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    6. Re:Not "Gouging" by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Estonia says the Internet is a right? Screw this place, I'm going there. I can learn Russian, or local dialect thereof.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    7. Re:Not "Gouging" by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Actually, they speak Estonian...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  23. Re:no-win -- Win by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

    "Assuming the lawsuit is successful, they'll just roll the $7 fee into the base price for ALL of their plans. So my $20/mo plan will become a $26.95/mo plan. Big whoop."

    It is a Big Whoop. PC Mobile doesn't charge the System Access Fee and I always just assumed they did. I'd rather cell companies advertise $26.95/month because that's what they actually &*%#@ charge! Oh... and paying $4/month for them NOT TO BLOCK call display? Blow me! I don't have a home phone. I have a cell and skype... one day I'll just have WiFi and VoIP. Cell companies should fear WiFi phones... if/when that catches on it'll be payback!

  24. 12 billion? by IronWilliamCash · · Score: 1

    What I'm wondering is, if the companies lose, how hard is this a blow to them paying so much money as a penalty? Would any of them go out of buisness or is 12 billion chump change?

    1. Re:12 billion? by Racemaniac · · Score: 1

      well, it's very simple, when they lose the case, everyone in the world will get an SMS
      "We're very sorry for the price gouging
      SMS "STOP" to 1234 to no longer recieve updates on our class action suits"
      each SMS will cost you 1$ (both recieve and send)
      and their fine is paid :)

    2. Re:12 billion? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      That's OK, I can name at minimum two countries which would immediately file lawsuits against them for violating their local anti-spam acts if they did that :)

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  25. Re:Just because I have to by trolltalk.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > Yep, and Canadian products will become more "expensive" to Americans (therefore, less goods are sold). Additionally, US products will become cheaper for Canadians (therefore, more of our goods get sold to you)....

    You seem to forget, we're your #1 supplier of petroleum products. You really don't have a choice if we raise prices to match domestic prices, since we supply the equivalent of 1 Katrina of oil, and there isn't enough slack in the world, never mind enough oil tankers, to make up the difference.

    You *could* stop using up so much of it, which is what will probably happen as people stop over-spending and are unable to borrow against their home's declining values.

  26. Re:Just because I have to by thewils · · Score: 1

    Actually, 8.86613 U.S dollars at the moment.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
  27. Re:Worthwhile Canadian Lawsuit by Jason1729 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I see you voted for Bush.

  28. The REAL question is.... by belgar · · Score: 1

    .....where do I sign up? I'm all for free money back.

    --
    What does it mean to wake out of a dream
    and be wearing someone else's shorts?
    BNL, Born on a Pirate Ship (1998)
  29. Prepaid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use a prepaid cell phone. I don't have a contract. I don't pay any fees. I pay x amount of dollars to get y amount of minutes. Period. The only downsides are that the per-minute price is higher than normal plans and the minutes expire after a year. Of course prepaid doesn't include any kind of text messaging or other fancy features, so if those are important than you'll have to do something else. But for somebody who just wants to talk on a phone, prepaid is the only way to go.

  30. Re:Not "Gouging" for a Wii either by NFN_NLN · · Score: 3, Funny

    ""Price Gouging" is for life-essentials - like food, water, shelter. A cellphone plan isn't a life essential."

    I agree. When I was selling Nintendo Wiis during Xmas for $450 people kept saying I was a price gouging sack of $%@*. Now I know it's not true :). Thanks for clearing that up.

  31. Automatic? by XiticiX · · Score: 1

    So where do I sign up for this lawsuit? Or is it automatic because I'm a customer of Bell (previously Telus)?

    And I don't care if they bump up the price of the normal plan. At least what's advertised will match what one is billed, for once.

    --
    All is prevelant in the world...
  32. I'll buy one when... by Toshito · · Score: 1

    they charge a fixed monthly rate just like a land line.

    I don't have a cell phone and frankly I don't need one.

    But if someone offer something like 25$ a month unlimited minutes 24-7 (however you can charge me long distance) I'll drop my land line and go grab a cell...

    --
    Try it! Library of Babel
    1. Re:I'll buy one when... by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

      they charge a fixed monthly rate just like a land line.

      I don't have a cell phone and frankly I don't need one.

      But if someone offer something like 25$ a month unlimited minutes 24-7 (however you can charge me long distance) I'll drop my land line and go grab a cell...


      There's a service like that in the SF Bay Area and LA. It's more than $25, but it's unlimited, including long distance. There are roaming charges iff you leave the area.

      Not a customer, but I've seen their billboards.

    2. Re:I'll buy one when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (however you can charge me long distance)

      Why? Long distance is only there to make phone companies rich. MCI routes all its calls through Texas, from what I hear. And SaskTel has ONE cellular switch, so every CDMA cell phone call made in Saskatchewan goes through Saskatoon whether LD or not. If you're with Shaw in Saskatchewan your calls go through Calgary, In Lloydminster Saskatchewanto Alberta calls are local, even though it goes from Lloyd to North Battleford to Vegreville to Lloyd.

  33. Normally I hate mass tort law. by Jason1729 · · Score: 2

    Since it screws over the customers worse than the companies just to make the lawyers rich.

    But in this case, these ripoff fees have been bugging me for 10 years, so I'm all for this on. If they roll in the fees with the normal rates, good, that's how they should do it.

    1. Re:Normally I hate mass tort law. by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Since it screws over the customers worse than the companies just to make the lawyers rich. It's called getting paid on contingency and the percentage the lawyers get is subject to court review & approval and can be anywhere from 25% to 50% in the USA

      Class Action law suits normally take years to complete... during this time, the lawyers aren't getting paid by their clients. So instead of every member of the suit paying the billable hours in monthly installments, the lawyers get a cut of the winnings. This tends to give them great incentive to negotiate/win a high dollar value.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Normally I hate mass tort law. by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

      Every member of the class gets a few dollars maybe a few tens of dollars if it's a major tort. In return they lose the right to sue in the future. In the Sony rootkit case they got a $5 coupon iirc.

      The lawyers walk away with millions of dollars.

      So yeah, the class members get screwed as badly as the companies their suing to give the lawyers millions of dollars they don't deserve.

    3. Re:Normally I hate mass tort law. by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      The point of class action lawsuits is not to make money though, it is to invoke change.

      As long as in the end we don't have to pay these bs fees anymore, the consumers will be happy with the outcome, and that includes myself.

      --
      No Comment.
  34. Re:Just because I have to by everphilski · · Score: 1

    "You can never trust a Canadian. Someday, we'll be providing your natural resources" -Steven Page, Barenaked Ladies

  35. Too bad it's Tony Merchant running it... by McGregorMortis · · Score: 1

    Those 7500 people will be lucky if they see pennies on the dollar from any settlement.

    Googling "Merchant Law Group" turns up some strange legalese terms. What does "conduct unbecoming a lawyer" mean? What does "disbarment" mean?

    Unfortunately, the Merchant firm also has powerful friends in high places.

    1. Re:Too bad it's Tony Merchant running it... by XiticiX · · Score: 2, Funny

      12bil / 7500 = $1,600,000. minus lawyer fees.

      --
      All is prevelant in the world...
    2. Re:Too bad it's Tony Merchant running it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in at least one case, it means he assisted a client in abducting the client's daughter. The client in question was Colin Thatcher; turned out he had just beaten to death his own ex-wife, the child's mother, the previous day.

      Merchant then plea bargained his way down to mischief, and somehow got off with an absolute discharge.

      see http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012968

    3. Re:Too bad it's Tony Merchant running it... by jda487 · · Score: 1

      So 12bil / 7500 = $1,600,000 - minus lawyer fees = 0

      The Merchant Law Group is basically an overgrown ambulance chasing operation that sues anyone they can for 1000 trillion dollars.

      And yeah, they've had a lot of legal "trouble" themselves. I've heard that the son of a partner in the firm was disbarred in Alberta. Maybe just a rumor.

    4. Re:Too bad it's Tony Merchant running it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember when Tony Merchant was running for the Liberal nomination in my riding (now represented by Ralph Goodale). His workers were offering a beer and pizza party to high school students in exchange for their vote at the nomination meeting.

      Ah, offering beer to 16 year olds. Classy.

      The whole family seems to have political aspirations (his son was unsuccessful in running for the leadership of the Young Liberals), yet the only one of them to hold any office is the wife, Pana. She was appointed to the senate by Jean Chretien.

    5. Re:Too bad it's Tony Merchant running it... by Trillan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sure I'll never see a penny, but I signed up anyway just because I hope it will exert some pressure on the companies to be more honest. This isn't something they stopped doing years ago -- it's something they still do today.

  36. Re:Just because I have to by king-manic · · Score: 1

    The point is: currency values mean very little unless you trade them or are measuring inflation. Any more analysis is a discussion of macro-economic theory and world money supply. A topic best left to the economists.

    Any instantaneous value doesn't mean much. But patterns mean more. The US greenback has been in a slide for sometime. Confidence in the currency is dropping among certain groups and thus it's being slaughtered by currency speculators. Over the last 8 years it's lost about 30%-50% of it's relative value against other western currencies. It happens to coincide with a strong Canadian economy which leads to the 50% gain the loonie has had over the greenback in the last year.

    I agree it's meaning is very open to interpretations.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  37. Access fees... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

    I assume by 'access' they mean what occurs directly after you bend over and grab your ankles?

    Anyway... We're at a time in this technology that is going to be a short-lived transition in the larger picture. Eventually prices for all cell phone service will drop dramatically, including all data services. Right now we're just getting out of the early adopter phase and are moving into widespread use. (I'm looking at timelines of how long it took the human race to develop sufficient technology for this to work and how long we've actually had it... the latter time is almost nothing)

    So right now companies are able to bend us over... but whereas they didn't before, now they have to at least lube up.

    I don't really see this lawsuit succeeding, but hey, it's worth a try I guess.

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    1. Re:Access fees... by mks113 · · Score: 1

      Cell phone companies in Canada annoy the hell out of me. Just spent 2 years in Kenya -- backwards African country -- where:

      -You can buy an activated GSM phone with SIM card for $35.
      -Air time is prepaid by almost everyone, costs about CDN 25c/min voice to anywhere in the country, 8c/SMS, free to receive calls and SMS
      -All phones are unlocked
      -International calls to North America are about 50c/min
      -New SIM card is about $3.
      -GPRS data access 30c/MB
      -Airtime scratch cards can be bought anywhere in values between about $1 and $15.

      And to top it all: The two main mobile companies are bringing in some of the largest profits for Kenyan corporations and are being pushed to reduce costs.

      Brought a nice phone back with me (cheaper at the dealer there than used on ebay) to connect up with Rogers.
      $35 activation fee
      $25 SIM card
      $10 Airtime

      $75 later, my phone was working on prepaid, but: can't send SMS (config somewhere I suppose) -- doesn't really matter as you can't do international SMS. $10/month minimum. GPRS data is expensive! Coverage isn't the greatest.

      Then again, mobile there is almost a necessity. Landlines are not too common and the average person may be able to save up for a mobile, but doesn't have a chance of getting a landline.

  38. Call Center by XiticiX · · Score: 1

    Oh, I'd hate to be working at a Cdn cellphone callcentre right now...

    --
    All is prevelant in the world...
  39. Re:Worthwhile Canadian Lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know it's too much to ask for a Canadian to have some sort of understanding that not all Americans are ignorant assholes - just the louder portion.

  40. Doesn't Necessarily Affect Everyone by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm on prepaid, only paying $10/mth+tax and nothing else. That's one of the reasons I picked prepaid to begin with; No system access fee, at least in Canada on Telus.

    1. Re:Doesn't Necessarily Affect Everyone by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      I have been doing the same thing ever since I got a cell phone nearly 10 years ago... pretty much all services included (a ~$20/month freebie), no unnecessary network fees, no nonsense. In the early years, $10 used to be good for two months at a time.

      Since I use it mostly to be reachable for job interviews and to locate my friends when we go out and lose sight of each other or got confused about the actual meeting place, I rarely use it more than 10-15 minutes per month.

    2. Re:Doesn't Necessarily Affect Everyone by saskboy · · Score: 1

      Oh, but do they roll that fee into the ~$10/month or so that we're paying?

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    3. Re:Doesn't Necessarily Affect Everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, it's all calculated into the $10.

  41. To sign up... by ameline · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you are Canadian, and have a canadian cell phone, Go to http://www.merchantlaw.com/cellular.html to sign up...

    --
    Ian Ameline
    1. Re:To sign up... by XiticiX · · Score: 1

      Excellent. There is a facebook group for this as well. Do a group search for "Cellular Class Action"

      --
      All is prevelant in the world...
    2. Re:To sign up... by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 1

      The Canadian court of law recognizes Facebook as a venue for legal actions, now?

      --
      Stasis is death. Embrace change.
    3. Re:To sign up... by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1

      Or, just use this link to the Class action group on facebook.

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
    4. Re:To sign up... by Clith · · Score: 1

      I signed up. Hope to see a "touch tone service fee" lawsuit next!

      --
      [ReidNews]
  42. To join the Class Action.... by JamJam · · Score: 1
  43. What is happening? by WwWonka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously? This country and corporations(as well as you Canadians up 'der") have found fit to nickel and dime the lazy into millions and billions of extra dollars in hidden fees, surcharges, and taxes.

    It's interesting to see this in almost EVERY major bill of everyday American usage. Phone, cable, electric, gas. It truly is out of control and it's a pleasant surprise to see the Canadians take charge. Now if us Americans would understand that the phone companies here are doing the same PLUS charging us for for fractions of extra minutes based on getting their own operator telling us "if you would like to leave a message press one, if you would like to page this person, press 2. If not please leave your message after the tone." 15 seconds of extra money for them after every phone call not answered. I bet that adds up to a few extra "crack" millions a year.

    1. Re:What is happening? by Stunning+Tard · · Score: 1
      Here's hoping us Canadians can continue this 'take charge' thing
      I got my land-line phone bill today.
      This is the cheapest plan advertised: Starting at under $20
      Here is the bill for one of these plans:

      Residence line 18.48
      Network Charge 5.95
      CITY CALLING AREA EXPANSION 0.50
      911 emergency service access 0.19
      Touch-Tone service 2.80
      Long Distance Credit* -2.95
      First Rate TM Worldwide 0.00
      Total 24.97
      I don't see any fees there that you can opt out of, but they still advertise a sub-$20 plan. The Network Charge is almost EXACTLY the same as the one that earned this class-action suit.
      *Don't ask me how I got this credit on my bill, I don't know. And don't tell them I have it either. Also there are no other items on my bill (long distance or otherwise) except sales taxes.
    2. Re:What is happening? by callmevinny · · Score: 1

      "The Network Charge is almost EXACTLY the same as the one that earned this class-action suit."

      I believe you can remove the network charge by opting out of any default
      Bell long distance plan that might be part of the plan. I have an
      alternate LD provider and my Bell bill is:

      Residence line 18.48
      CITY CALLING AREA EXPANSION 0.50
      911 emergency service access 0.19
      Touch-Tone service 2.80
      Total 21.97
      (Add taxes after that GST=1.32, PST=1.76 gives a grand total of $25.05)

      I have just cancelled the LD provider. I wonder if the network charge
      will magically re-appear?

    3. Re:What is happening? by Nuitari+The+Wiz · · Score: 1

      I actually opted out of touch tone on my fax line. As for the "Network Charge 5.95" this is because you are on a Bell's LD plan. First Rate TM Worldwide is the plan that you have. If you don't have a LD plan, this are the rates for LD Calls: http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpPns_Lng_Base.page (Remember the time where it was cheaper in the evening? This is it...) If you check their 15c a month plan, which allegedly doesn't have a monthly fee, they will charge 5.95$ of "Network Charge" http://www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpPns_Lng_Detail.page?wlcs_catalog_item_sku=10001 You can either signup with another LD carrier that has no montly fee or get Bell to disconnect your plan. I've signed up with StarTec.ca recently, but I haven't gotten a bill or a credit card charge yet. They say that there is no montly fee at all if everything is done electronically (eg cc billing, and email invoice).

    4. Re:What is happening? by Stunning+Tard · · Score: 1

      Thanks to you and Wiz for spotting my mistake, I'll be canceling my LD post haste.

      And I see/remember how it got like this. I signed up for the LD on condition that bell would waive the monthly $2.95 fee. They accomplished this by charging the fee then crediting the same amount. Then Aug 1, 2007 they doubled the fee. (profit)

  44. Re:Just because I have to by Dragon+of+the+Pants · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1.00 CAD = 0.985699 USD Not even 1 and a half cents difference per dollar. And the way things are going, we'll be the ones making fun of the American dollar soon enough.

  45. Re:Just because I have to by BeanBunny · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter. The point is: currency values mean very little unless you trade them or are measuring inflation. Any more analysis is a discussion of macro-economic theory and world money supply. A topic best left to the economists.

    It does matter, and it doesn't take an economist to notice it. Just ask any business that does export between the two countries. In the US, factory outlet stores spring up along the border like dandelions when the US dollar falls, and die just as quickly when the US dollar rises.

    Similarly, Canadian export businesses that sell and ship primarily to US customers (of which there are many) tend to see a sharp drop in business when the Canadian dollar rises. The drop can be significant enough to put an end to low-margin businesses, especially if they don't have deep enough pockets.

    Your point may be that this has little effect on the overall economy, which may be true (and I agree, is a topic for economists), but I believe it is foolish to say that there is no effect whatsoever.

  46. Re:no-win -- Win by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

    one day I'll just have WiFi and VoIP $15.95 from Primus gets you basic VoIP for local calling.

    I have a house alarm that requires a phone in order to get the insurance deduction, so I have a home phone. Awesome.
    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  47. Deceptive. by ACMENEWSLLC · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's deceptive. If I sign up for a $49/mo plan and incur no extra expenses (MMS, minutes, downloads) then why is my bill $63/mo give or take a few bucks? Why does it vary when I never have extra charges?

    If the plan costs $63/mo then advertise it as that. Not $49/mo.

    And then all these "free phone" deals. I keep asking them for that free phone, but they won't give it to me without money. The sign says "free phone." and it doesn't have an *. If it says free, then why can't I have it free?

    I have a free phone you can have, just sign here. What did you sign? A contract for a variable monthly fee service which I can change the fee structure at any time and an agreement to pay $300 if you cancel. I reserve the right to increase your fee's at any time. And I can add $20 worth of monthly fee's if I feel like it with no recourse on your side.

    Sucks. But they all do it.

    1. Re:Deceptive. by DaveCBio · · Score: 1

      I have a $25 per month plan and even when I don't go over my alloted minutes with all the extra fees I pay $45 a month through Telus.

  48. Not for existing customers by phorm · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not for customers who already have $XX price for a plan. The price of the plan is fixed (unless you switch to a new plan), and would be grandfathered in with the contract, etc.

    My captcha is parasite... how nice and fitting for a comment on a cellphone-related article

  49. Re:Just because I have to by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1
    Right now the USD is dropping like a rock ... what with everything being manufactured in China and blown up in Iraq, there's not much good news for the US dollar.

    I figure it's 50/50 whether or not the USD is blow the CAD by the end of the month.

    --
    OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  50. Re:Just because I have to by bcreason · · Score: 1

    Very Funny. Our money is almost on par with yours now. This time next year it'll be us making the jokes.

  51. Re:no-win (for us) by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is no financial reason why a provider can provide unlimited voice calls but must charge $0.15 for an SMS message. Yes, there is --- Profit!
    --
    OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  52. Used to be a.... by Nexzus · · Score: 1

    $48/Year fee, mandated by the CRTC (Kinda like the FCC). Not sure when it transitioned to 6.95/month.

    --
    Karma: Can only be portioned out by the Cosmos.
    1. Re:Used to be a.... by orpheum · · Score: 1

      Indeed. $48/year actually equals out to $4/month. So why is the system access fee $6.95/month (PLUS TAX!!)?

      And wtf, Bell just upped theirs to $8.95/month? I figured Bell getting the majority of their big markets deregulated was going to result in lower fees for their home phone service. Are they trying to offset it by upping the system access fee? I thought Teachers wanted to put Bell back on top? *sigh* I'm so confuzzled.

  53. Mod parent up. by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1

    (N/T) For us Canadians, this is very pertinent information.

    --
    OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  54. GOOD by hurfy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Assuming the lawsuit is successful, they'll just roll the $7 fee into the base price for ALL of their plans. So my $20/mo plan will become a $26.95/mo plan. Big whoop."

    That is the idea yes.

    Did you get the plan on price? You would not know your $20 plan costs more than my $25 plan until you sign on for a year or two!

    I am trying to compare phone companies for work. It is impossible to know how much it will cost without signing up. Land or cell :(

    Is $25.00 per month and $.07 per minute better or worse than $15.00 per month and $.08 per minute? No matter how much math you throw at it you can't tell because they tack on too many fake fees mixed in the real taxes. XO adds a minimum of 10% on the the bottom of the bill up to 24% if your a little guy :/ The other company seems to charge more in sales tax than i can find taxable plus several questionable 'fees'. Repeat for multiple techniques for each company :(

    PS: so far XO is the worst on under-the-line fees plus they flat-out lied to me when asked about one.

  55. Re:Just because I have to by sco08y · · Score: 1

    We went from ~0.69 greenbacks per loonies to 0.98 greenbacks per loonie.

    This just means that Canadians will buy more American stuff. Is that supposed to bother me?

  56. Re:Worthwhile Canadian Lawsuit by BlueshiftVFX · · Score: 0

    though I must say that there are some Americans that have not been very well educated on the world outside of their borders. I was in California a few years back and when I told a guy I was visiting from Canada, he asked me if that was an eastern state. I don't think this guy was the sharpest tool in the shed, though he may have been the strongest. It was at a gym.

  57. Re:Just because I have to by cheater512 · · Score: 1

    Americans cutting down on oil? Heh, unlikely.
    They'd pay through the nose just to have a bigger SUV than their neighbors.

  58. Contact info? by anethema · · Score: 1

    Does anyone here have the contact information for the lawyer etc conducting this suit for all those Canadians getting bilked?

    --


    It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  59. Re:Just because I have to by Trillan · · Score: 1

    I think "end of month" is pessimistic. If it's going to happen, it'll likely be by the end of this week.

  60. Where to sign onto this lawsuit by necro2607 · · Score: 1

    For any Canadians who want to sign onto this lawsuit:

    http://www.merchantlaw.com/cellular.html

    Recommend this to anyone you know who uses a cellphone from a Canadian provider!

  61. Re:Just because I have to by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    No, once our money drops to yours, phase one of the North American Union will be complete. Next, both of us will nosedive toward peso parity. I see no reason to trust Canadian politicians any more than US politicians wrt carefully orchestrated treason.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  62. $25 = $46? by hkmarks · · Score: 1

    I used to be on a monthly Bell plan. It was their cheapest plan, advertised as $25/month with internet access and a certain number of free text messages. Great! Except that for call display, it was an extra $5 a month. I opted out of voice mail because that would have been another $5 a month. $35 a month was pushing my budget. Unfortunately, I didn't know about the system access fees (I did realize there would be tax, of course). My final monthly bill was $46/month. I also didn't know that the rebate claim form that I got because I signed on to a contract was going to expire, so I missed the deadline to send it in. I was locked into a contract that the other side tricked their way out of honouring for two years.

    Adding injury to injury, while "internet access" was included, bandwidth was not. It was $50/month. I was rather excited about having a phone that could download things, so I downloaded two ringtones and a game. They cost me about $7, which I expected... plus over $30 for the bandwidth. I had never been told about the bandwidth charges and none of the paperwork I had been given when I signed up had mentioned it.

    Within hours of my contract expiring, I switched to prepaid. I would have dropped Bell completely, but at the time it wasn't possible to keep your number when changing carriers. Now I pay $25 for two months of access... taxes, access fee, and call display included. I once used the full $25 during a month in which I took a 10-day vacation out of province and made long-distance calls while roaming, but other than that I've never used it up.

    Even if I had sent in the rebate form (that was partly my own fault for procrastinating and not reading it carefully), I lost more money on that than I like to think about. If I hadn't gone on a plan in the first place, I would have saved about $800 over the course of two years, or about $650 if I'd gotten my rebate.

    Prepaid is more per minute, so if I were a bigger talker it might equalize. Going on that plan is a pretty big regret though. If I got a new phone, even a super swanky one, I'd pay for it outright and get prepaid again.

  63. Re:no-win (for us) by jtcampbell · · Score: 1

    In the UK one reason for some of the cost is interconnect fees. If you send a SMS to a phone on another network then your network has to pay a fee (3p per message if I remember correctly) to the destination network.

  64. Re:Just because I have to by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Over the last 8 years it's lost about 30%-50% of it's relative value against other western currencies. It happens to coincide with a strong Canadian economy which leads to the 50% gain the loonie has had over the greenback in the last year.

    8 years also happens to coincide with GW Bush presidency. But spending $200 million PER DAY on a war couldn't possibly have any effect on the economy now could it..

    --
    Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  65. Re:Just because I have to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There's American stuff? Pretty much everything comes from China these days.

    True story: my wife was looking for a new sewing machine a couple years back. We shopped around and eventually settled on a specific Singer model. Then on impulse my wife decided to get a white plastic case to store the machine away when not in use. Upon getting everything home I noticed the sewing machine - a complex piece of machinery with lots of value-add in the manufacturing - was made in China ... the cheap white plastic case - with a grand total of two moving parts in the form of metal latches - was manufactured in the United States. I called my wife over and said "here you go honey ... a perfect metaphor for the decline in American manufacturing."

    So, good luck with that plastic-sewing-machine-based economy.

  66. Re:Just because I have to by freeweed · · Score: 1

    Personally, I only clicked on this story so that I could find some American jackass showing their complete and utter ignorance of current events, and the mods dropped the comment below my threshold.

    Now my day is ruined.

    Guess I'll make it up with a trip to Vegas - AT PAR :)

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  67. Made! In Saskatchewan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    As a Toon Town resident all my life, and a SaskTel user for 95% of that (1.5 years with Fido, ARG!) let me paint a picture of how castrated SaskTel cell-phone service is.
    I use that term because "it has no balls whatsoever".

    - We pay Bell Mobility in Ontario. Yes, the last-bastion of Crown Corporations only gets a cut of the Bell pie.
    - We cannot use the vast majority of web-to-phone services. Promotions and content are carrier-dependant, and despite paying Bell, we do not use their network. How quickly would you lay out a contract for another 400,000 potential customers versus another 4,000,000?
    - We get CDMA, with no sim cards. Meaning the phone I pay $300 for can only be used in 14% of the globe compared to the phone you paid $300 for.
    Tri-band is A Good Thing.

    The main benefits of course are:
    - We get rural coverage, which is kind of important. We're larger than California with less than 1 million people. (And yet there's never enough parking downtown!)
    - Supporting a heartless local monopoly is preferable to a national one.
    - Chances are you know someone who works in the local call centre and can kick them in the nuts for bad service. (See what I did there?)

    However, I may be biased. Living here does that. ;-)

  68. Re:Just because I have to by Nikker · · Score: 1

    You sell us oil? You're joking right?

    We sell *you* you're oil ... and beef ... and lumber ...

    Read up http://mmsd1.mms.nrcan.gc.ca/mmsd/trade/fuel_st1-4.htm

    --
    A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
  69. Re:no-win (for us) by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now whose fault is that? The phone companies. We're going to all charge each other money for these connections that don't really cost us anything. That way, we can charge our customers to "cover our costs". It's brilliant.

    A rip-off is a rip-off whether it is perpetrated by a single company acting alone or by the whole lot of the slimy dirtbags.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  70. Re:no-win (for us) by Solandri · · Score: 1

    In the UK one reason for some of the cost is interconnect fees. If you send a SMS to a phone on another network then your network has to pay a fee (3p per message if I remember correctly) to the destination network.
    Then that's an archaic cost structure, dating back from the analog days when voice calls were fundamentally different from data transfer. Nowadays, nearly all telecommunications is digital, so voice calls are simply data. It makes no sense to charge more for one form of digital data because it contains ASCII instead of CELP.

    If money is being charged disproportionate to the cost of a service, that represents an opportunity for a competitor to grab marketshare by offering the same service at a lower cost. Left to its own devices, the market will correct itself in these situations. Unfortunately, we have collusion, monopolies, and buying of government regulations thwarting what the market wants to do.

    If this situation persists, someone will figure out a way to piggyback an ASCII/Unicode stream into a CELP transmission, allowing owners of phones with the new feature to send SMS to each other via their "free" voice minutes rather than having to may $0.15/ea. Unfortunately, the current crop of phone companies will then collude to require this feature be disabled on all phones which use their network. This is why Google's efforts to open up the 700 MHz band up for auction in the U.S. are so important.

  71. Re:Just because I have to by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

    If you mean our #1 foreign supplier, then yes, you're right.

    The top 5 suppliers of petroleum to the US are The United States: 39.7%, Canada: 10.5%, Mexico: 8%, Saudi Arabia: 7.4%, and Venezuela: 7.4%.

    (Information derived from Energy Information Administration statistics, which only shows the stats for 2005 and earlier)

    Personally, I think we should use less petroleum products over here, but convincing people to use their cars less (which accounts for 50% or so of our petroleum usage) isn't easy as long as people here choose to live in Suburbia.

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  72. Beating a dying horse by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I don't see a future in cell phones as we know them now. As wireless networks cover more and more areas (which might happen very quickly as the range of WiFi devices increases), more people will shift to VoIP. WiFi is only available in high-end smartphones right now, but within a few years it could be a standard feature. All it takes is for the phone manufacturers to stop pandering to the service providers and put WiFi and a proper VoIP app on phones. Once WiFi becomes a standard feature, every average Joe on the street will be installing a VoIP app on their phone (there's plenty of incentive), and the shift will slowly be made from calling over cellular networks to calling over VoIP, the same way SMS has gone from being used by gadget freaks to cost-conscious callers and is now commonly used by everyone. The urge to switch to VoIP will be even greater, and the hardware will change to suit. For example portable audio went from portable CD players to CD/MP3 players and finally, as people stop buying CDs and start buying their music in a purely digital format, to DAPs incapable of playing CDs. Phones will go from cellular only to cell+WiFi and finally, as people stop subscribing to cellular service, to WiFi only. The technology is not far off at all.

    However just as the RIAA has done everything to resist change and prop up the corpse of their old business model, expect the service providers to do everything in their power to stop the adoption of VoIP on portable devices. They won't be able to do much though, so just expect the providers to put on a smear campaign in their death throes. Everyone will be pointing and laughing and chatting with their friend on the other side of the planet for free.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  73. Re:Just because I have to by trolltalk.com · · Score: 2, Informative

    "> You sell us oil? You're joking right?

    > We sell *you* you're oil ... and beef ... and lumber ... Canada does oil swaps with the US. Rather than the US moving oil from the east coast to the west coast, and Canada moving oil from Alberta to the east coase, Canada sends some oil to the US west and central states, and "swaps" it with oil the us imports from the middle east and venezuela that is sent up to estern Canada.

    However, the net balance i petroleum products is definitely in our (Canada's) favour, and there is not enough tanker capacity to make up for it if almost any country stops shipping, or unilaterally raises the price. Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela could form NorAmPEC, charge a $100/bbl "environmental tax", and there isn't enough capacity to replace it. Even with the resulting lower demand, NorAmPEC would still come out ahead, money-wise, especially since OPEC would probably jump in.

  74. GRS radio fee by wing03 · · Score: 1

    If I recall, this used to be called a Ground Radio Station license fee.

    Long before cell phones, if you flew a radio controlled airplane, you had to buy one of these licenses every year because of the range and power.

    I vaguely remember it being $50/year CAD in the 80s and early 90s.

    Cell phone providers used to charge it one time per year but then they decided to divide that number by 10 and took the resulting number and charged you that same amount every month.

    Then, they deregulated cell phones and radio control boxes from the GRS fee. Yet, I still see "system access fee" on my bill.

    Yup.... greedy bastards.

  75. Re:Just because I have to by butlerdi · · Score: 1

    Nothing new. Look up the exchange rates from the 60's. Can $ 1.10 US $ or more.

    --
    "If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" -- "Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa
  76. Too much complaining! by roseacres · · Score: 1

    My first cell phone required a 3 watt transmitter in the trunk of my car - cost me $300. Airtime was $.45 a minute - period. No plans, no freebies, no data, no messaging. Monthly bill would run from $150 to $300 a month. That was 1989 - everything now is a whole lot cheaper and a whole lot more reliable. Wait a few more years, it'll all get better - long before the courts do anything.

  77. Re:Just because I have to by nacturation · · Score: 1

    And the way things are going, we'll be the ones making fun of the American dollar soon enough. Wasn't that exactly what the original poster did?
    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  78. Re:Just because I have to by king-manic · · Score: 1

    This just means that Canadians will buy more American stuff. Is that supposed to bother me? Most of the trade is currently, we sell you gold, oil, diamonds, and wood. We use that money to buy stuff from china. So it doesn't mean all of sudden we'll be buying more US consumer goods. It means all of sudden we'll be charging more for your gold, oil, diamonds, and wood. Most of the imports from the US are agricultural and technology as the US isn't a manufacturing giant anymore. The currency swing has been going on for some time but I haven't read about a notable upswing in buying US goods although there is a definite upswing in Asian goods (HDTV, electronics, etc..).
    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  79. Everyone in Canada just won the Lotto by R4wBon3 · · Score: 1

    Now, with this, everyone in Canada will be a millionaire (after it is evenly distributed among the people)

  80. Re:Just because I have to by Dragon+of+the+Pants · · Score: 1

    No?

  81. Re:Just because I have to by BlueStraggler · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter. The point is: currency values mean very little unless you trade them or are measuring inflation. Any more analysis is a discussion of macro-economic theory and world money supply. A topic best left to the economists. Unless:
    • you quote on projects to American clients, in US dollars
    • you receive payment for those projects in US dollars
    • you have existing service contracts with American clients, paid in US dollars
    • you maintain US dollar bank accounts for those funds to avoid exchange fees
    • you have contractors on staff who are paid in US dollars
    But I guess that never happens in your part of the country.
  82. Re:I'll buy one when... I'm in Finland by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    US/UK/Canadian cell phone fees are a major rip off.
    My service has a basic fee of eur0.66 per month, and it costs eur 0.069 per minute or per text message. The startup fee is eur2.90
    http://www.dnafinland.fi/showPrivateProductSubscription.do?selectedMenuItem=AAA0dnaOnni
    To reach a monthly total of eur15 (about $20), I'd need to blather for 200 minutes per month.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  83. Re:Just because I have to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -1, clueless.

  84. Re:Just because I have to by bcreason · · Score: 1

    Paranoid Much?

  85. Gouging? by booyabazooka · · Score: 1

    And what, might I ask, is wrong with a little price gouging? People obviously want to send text messages, so service providers should charge as much as users are willing to pay for them.

  86. Re:Just because I have to by sholden · · Score: 1

    1 USD = 1.001 CAD

    Nice job Bernanke, keep lowering that rate to keep your mates in Wall Street happy.

    I mean you can push the DOW to 25,000 with a few more rate cuts. Sadly though you're running out of bullets...

  87. Win some, lose some. by ^_^x · · Score: 1

    I live in Alberta and while I pay about $7/mo to use my Rogers phone, I can leave it turned on and wander all over the country and not be gouged for roaming fees by little roadside bandit carriers. I've heard this is a big problem particularly in southern states - drive a highway for a few hours, forget to shut off your cel, and get a $100 phone bill!

    Only recently have things moved away from being a few-carrier monopoly - now there are a half dozen or so. Some things are pretty stupid, but overall I'm happy with Canadian cel provider practices. They should however include the access fee in the price of the plan as doing otherwise is bait & switch, possibly even false advertising. (What, am I going to sign up for the plan and NOT use their network? WTF?)

  88. Re:Just because I have to by el_gordo101 · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter. The point is: currency values mean very little unless you trade them or are measuring inflation. Any more analysis is a discussion of macro-economic theory and world money supply. A topic best left to the economists.

    It means something if you travel from the US to Canada frequently. Your Greenbacks suddenly buy a whole lot less in Canada, especially with all of the "sin taxes" levied on certain goods. $40.00 CAN for a two-four of beer? $1.05 CAN per liter for gas? $10.00 CAN for a pack of smokes? Outrageous! In years past it was great, your (US) dollar would go a long way up North, not so much now. Hell, my Canadian relatives are all coming down here to buy Christmas gifts and other goods because the (CAN) dollar is just so strong compared to the Greenback.
    --
    TODO: Insert witty sig
  89. Re:no-win (for us) by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1

    So, I send you an SMS, then you reply with an SMS, Our respective ISPs charge each other 3p (which cancels out to 0), and they use this as a reason to charge us 30p? Oh yeah... real good!.

    --
    OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.