Canadians File Class Actions Over Incoming SMS Fees

dontmakemethink writes "CTV reports that over the last couple of weeks class-action lawsuits have been filed against two major Canadian cellular service providers, Bell and Telus, for imposing fees on incoming text messages. While there has been very vocal opposition to the introduction of the fees, those who cannot change providers due to binding contracts feel the situation is actionable in court. Some of those not bound by contract, such as myself, have given their service provider notice that they will charge the provider for having to contact them to have charges reversed for unsolicited texts. Because service providers are aware of the volume of unsolicited texts, we feel they are liable for the inconvenience to their clients for preventing spam charges, and more importantly under no circumstances should service providers profit from spam. We also feel that requiring us to buy text bundles to avoid the inconvenience of reversing spam charges constitutes extortion. They can charge me for texts when they stop the spam."

Comments

Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[William Ager]

I can understand how this might be a breach of contract issue for customers with binding contracts, and I would certainly expect many customers, even without binding contracts, to cancel their service over this. However, I really can't see how a customer can consider themselves justified in arbitrarily billing a company for their time just because the company makes changes that they dislike, no matter how horrible those changes may be.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Whuffo]

If a company can arbitrarily bill their customers for incoming messages then what's wrong with the customers billing the company for having to deal with those unwanted messages? Show me in the contract where it says that customers will be required to pay for SMS spam...

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[plasmacutter]

I can understand how this might be a breach of contract issue for customers with binding contracts, and I would certainly expect many customers, even without binding contracts, to cancel their service over this. However, I really can't see how a customer can consider themselves justified in arbitrarily billing a company for their time just because the company makes changes that they dislike, no matter how horrible those changes may be.

explain to me how it's not justified? they're billing people for spam they RECEIVE, using the assanine american "per-message" system.

People being held liable for unsollicited traffic they cannot control is criminally absurd, and if their regulatory bodies refuse to crush it in the womb, then I say billing phone companies for their time is an excellent proactive demonstration of, and against, that absurdity.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Umuri]

They aren't arbitrarily billing the company for their time because the company makes changes they dislike.

They are billing the company for the time they spend getting their money back when the company tries to charge them for texts the company forwards to them without their permission or want.

It's basically like me hitting you with a brick, then saying give me a dollar because you got hit with a brick

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Doc Daneeka]

A major problem occurs when any industry initiates a round of the Prisoner's Dilemma. One company institutes a policy change and their competitors follow them in the chase towards decreasing the bottom line and increasing profits. How are costumers supposed to vote with their feet, money, etc. when all/most of the industry have the policy or are quickly working towards embracing it?

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[William Ager]

I you were to hit me with a brick, and then demand a dollar for doing so, I would have you arrested, not send you a bill for the time I took to discard the brick. I can certainly understand that the change is unpleasant, but responses to such changes need to make sense. Arbitrary billing of this sort is pointless: the company is certainly never going to pay, and they have no obligation to do so. Dealing with the matter in the courts, or through cancelling the service, would make far more sense.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[William Ager]

If the matter is breach of contract, then it should be dealt with accordingly. There are mechanisms in society to deal with these sorts of issues, and they don't involve billing people without legal justification.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[polar red]

this is why self-regulation does not work!!

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[William Ager]

People being held liable for unsollicited traffic they cannot control is criminally absurd, and if their regulatory bodies refuse to crush it in the womb, then I say billing phone companies for their time is an excellent proactive demonstration of, and against, that absurdity.

And how, pray tell, is the sending of such bills going to change anything? The company doesn't need to pay them, and the customers are still paying just as much; there really isn't anything to motivate the companies to care about the bills at all. If the customers were deducting the amounts from their phone bills, it might make a bit more sense as a form of protest.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, prisoner's dilemma shouldn't work like that. Instead, it indicates that one company should snitch and capture a larger market at the expense of its co-inmates.

I suspect that an action as absurd and anti-customer as this being implemented by two companies at the same time indicates collusion, something the Prisoner's Dilemma doesn't allow.

Of course, collusion is possible through the action itself. The first company to do it could find themselves vulnerable to class-actions from stockholders though, for having not acted to increase profits.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[BPPG]

Dealing with the matter in the courts, or through cancelling the service, would make far more sense.

Dealing through the courts: No, that would not make sense. Lawyers cost money. The idea is to not spend more money. Being charged for received messages (plus a 'spam tax') is not just unpleasant. It costs money.

And canceling the service (wrt the cases in question) would often mean canceling all cellphone service. In many parts of Canada, there is only one available telecom and no alternatives. The telecom industry here is made of just a few lethargic behemoths, and there's only a semblance of competition in the higher population density regions. No disrespect intended, but do you understand why people are feeling frustrated here?

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Doc Daneeka]

How are costumers supposed to vote with their feet, money, etc. when all/most of the industry have the policy or are quickly working towards embracing it?

Break the chains of industry and make their own costumes!

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[purpledinoz]

Also, isn't there an anti-trust issue here? It seems to me that there was collusion between Bell and Telus, who both decided to charge exactly the same amount for incoming text messages, at around the same time. Are Bell and Telus the same company?

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[HadouKen24]

Actually, that is how the Prisoner's Dilemma works.

There are basically two versions: one in which it only happens once, and the iterated dilemma, in which the prisoners are going to have to deal with dilemma over and over again.

In the iterated version, altruistic strategies tend to work much better. That is, it will tend to your benefit NOT to screw over the other guy. Assuming that all prisoners act rationally, there will usually be relatively few confessions, though this only works if the exact number of iterations is unknown to the prisoners.

The iterated version much more closely resembles telecom competition. The companies are going to have to "compete" for some time. It's to their benefit to behave most of the time in ways that look like cooperation, even if there is no actual collusion. If both companies adopt strategies of cutthroat competition, then they'll get much slimmer profits than if they don't. Given that they both understand this, and they are both (relatively) rational actors, they will be reluctant to set off a cycle that might lead to drastically lower profit.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[geniusj]

Is slashdot turning into digg? Whether or not you agree with the parent, he/she isn't a troll..

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[geniusj]

You're ignoring his main point, that they are under no obligation to pay when they receive this 'bill.' So either way you go, it'll end up in court eventually. As it should.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your responses suggest this is yet another case of the Land Of The Fee making some people more equal than others.

When issuing a complaint to a firm in the UK, giving them a price list and then billing them for each letter you send (time to write, cost of postage) is well-known technique. If it comes to taking the firm to (usually) small claims court, these amounts may then be awarded as part of your win. And, contrary to all the "oh but they'll never pay" negativity, once you've won your case, if they don't cough up, the court gives permission to send bailiffs round and adds the cost of debt collection and wasting the court's time to the amount they owe. What often happens, if you're claiming a small amount and it's a big firm, is that they don't even turn up and you win by default - if the big guys refuse to swallow their pride and pay up immediately, it's instant tabloid press fodder.

So anyway, it's all part of increasing the risk for the firm if they fight you. It increases the likelihood that they acquiesce, content with the 95% who bend over and take it. Surely Canada, more recently severed from the motherland, gives its subjects similar recourse?

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Faylone]

You must have missed where Idle stories can make it to the front page. Welcome to Diggdot.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Moderatbastard]

True. He is however a pompous ass, but there isn't a mod for that.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Mike89]

I'm not sure about over there, but here in Australia when one of my mates mobile carrier was fucking him around (charging him for things that didn't occur), and wouldn't sort out his bill, he simply didn't pay it. This went on for 3 months at which point they suspended his account (so obviously this isn't practical for a lot of us), but inevitably they gave in because he had handset repayments and they stood to lose a lot over it (though as did he, in terms of credit history). Thankfully they stopped jerking him around though in the end.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me to chime in about The Netherlands, being blissfully ignorant of the legal situation in Canada: if a company/partner unilaterally changes the terms of contract, the contract can be declared void through the regular judicious channels (you do have to file for that, it is not an automatic cancellation).

However, any costs you incur through said changes are 100% recuperable, up to the point where you can send the company an invoice for billable hours.

So if my CPP started charging me for the number of texts I receive, and I'd have to phone them to correct the situation, I could send them a legally binding invoice for the following:

- the amount they overcharged me
- the phone costs I had to make calling them
- €35 for every (part of an) hour that I had to deal with their actions
- interest rates (most judges will agree with interest starting 2 weeks after the first invoice/notice)
- any legal costs I incur due to their non-compliance

(side note: look below to see where I posted about the same proceedings apply in the UK)

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[jcrousedotcom]

Actually, self regulation, when there is (apparently - I don't live in Canada, so I am just going on what those that live there are stating) no competition does not work. If the consumer had a choice - they'd tell this company to pound sand and switch to a provider that seemed more interested in their customers.

I have always used this analogy regarding the local land line provider but in Canada it apparently applies for the cell companies too:

We don't care, we don't have to. We're the phone company.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[NCG_Mike]

"It's basically like me hitting you with a brick, then saying give me a dollar because you got hit with a brick". If you hit me with a brick you could take my whole wallet! Infact, the threat would probably be enough.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Ucklak]

Not just that, you also get charged for messages you don't receive.
I don't have my cell phone on all the time and I used to get about 3 SMS messages a week. When I happened to have my phone on, they were either not meant for me, like 90% of my phone messages, or spam.
I have since opted out for SMS messages.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[pnewhook]

Can I also bill them for the plane ride to/from Montreal and the cost of the two dozen eggs to throw at the Bell executives as they walk into the corporate headquarters?

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[pnewhook]

This went on for 3 months at which point they suspended his account (so obviously this isn't practical for a lot of us), but inevitably they gave in because he had handset repayments and they stood to lose a lot over it (though as did he, in terms of credit history).

That's why I register my phone bill under my dogs name.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Mike89]

Not possibly over here unfortunately, you need "100 Points" of ID. I know a guy in the US who has a cat with a credit card though ;)

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you cancel your service over this when every other contract is the same? What, exactly, are you going to be running to?

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[electrictroy]

Anybody who hits ME with a brick is not going to live to see another day.

Because I'm going to hit that _____ with a bullet. And that would be justified self-defense, as a means to avoid death by brick-bashing. (The U.S. Supreme Court declared: "that the operative clause of the Second Amendment--"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"--is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for SELF-DFENSE and intrinsically for defense against tyranny")

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[electrictroy]

I don't understand why people say "we have no choice".

When Cellular One/Cingular/Verizon (they have multiple names) told me they had discontinued my $10 a month low-use rate, and were replacing it with a $30 a month standard rate, and that I had no choice but to pay-up..... I was extremely angry. For years I had used their service, and now suddenly they want to TRIPLE my rate??? Heck no. I told them "I do have a choice; cancel me now."

Now I use Virgin at approximately $5 a month.

So you see competition DOES work. You just have to grow a pair and tell the corporations the same thing you tell the policitians: "You're getting neither my money nor my vote." (Oh and if I was stuck in a contract, I'd just wait the few months until it expired, and then go find some better company.) Worst case: I dump my cell phone. I never had a cellphone prior to age 25, and I certainly don't "need" one now. I'd rather go back to using wired phones & email rather than let the Greedy corporations raid my wallet. They can go diddle themselves.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[neoform]

They're different companies.

In Canada the main telcos are Bell, Telus, Rogers and Fido.

Fido was bought out by Rogers however when Fido decided to offer an unlimited local calling plan for $40. As soon as they were bought out, Rogers crushed the plan and switched back to the "100 minutes local calling for $40" garbage.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[nasor]

Parent's point was that even switching to another company doesn't work if the companies all simultaneously institute the same change. Of course, in that case they aren't actually competing any more - they are colluding to maximize their collective profits. It's hard to make companies compete if they don't want to. There doesn't even have to be any explicit agreement between the companies; all it takes is for company A to find a way to screw their customers, and for company B, C, and D to all say to themselves "Hmmm, the door's open! Let's get on board with that!"

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[cayenne8]

Ok...so, ya'll haven't always been charged for incoming text messages? This is a new thing to you?

Interesting...

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[ceoyoyo]

Well, it might, if you have enough competitors and some of them are small and aggressive. The problem is, it's awfully hard to do that when you've got an industry that needs huge investment in infrastructure.

The government seems to want to give this self regulation thing another try, and they're encouraging buildout of new cell networks. I hope it'll work, but I think we're going to need some regulation too. Or let a couple of the big American companies in....

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Inquisitor911]

This is why more small, independent cellular companies need to be created. They would be able to give the major providers competition, causing them to lower their insanely over-inflated prices.

On another tangent, why not just eliminate the fee for SMS? I know it's a huge cash cow, but any sane person would agree that paying 5-30 cents for a 1-3 KB message is ridiculous. Only cellular service providers could get away with shit like this. It's pure extortion, driven by greed. Plain and simple.

If ISPs charged 5 cents per kilobyte, watching a single YouTube video could exceed $409.00!

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[BemoanAndMoan]

Anybody who hits ME with a brick is not going to live to see another day.

Yes, and this mentality has worked so well for America, all throughout its history. Big Stick is a tool of the lazy and ignorant, and a decent part the reason America is moving *down* many the world's quality indexes (standard of living, personal safety, etc.). But who needs statistics when you own a Colt, eh?

Canadians will use a range of proven, less hostile methods to effectively corner the greedy, unethical telcos into a no-win situation. Court, charging back companies for charges introduced post-contract, etc. are all civilized, proven and effective methods.

But good luck with your gun thing, I'm sure your random killing spree of innocent company employees will be effective in resolving your corporate woes.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[CastrTroy]

1-3 KB? An sms message is maximum 140 bytes (160 7-bit characters). If you count protocol overheard, you might be looking at about 256 bytes total. Also, the biggest problem with charging for incoming SMS is that you can't choose not to receive it. With a phone call you can always not pick up, if you don't feel like paying for it, or cut it off it goes on too long. With SMS you have no choice but to receive it. According to other posters, they don't even care if your phone is on and you don't receive it, which would be even worse.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[illumin8]

People being held liable for unsollicited traffic they cannot control is criminally absurd, and if their regulatory bodies refuse to crush it in the womb, then I say billing phone companies for their time is an excellent proactive demonstration of, and against, that absurdity.

The worst part is that some of these phone companies actually send unsolicited SMS spam themselves, to their own customers! How nice is it to receive a spam asking you to "Sign up for e-billing and save a tree" when it comes from your own cellphone company? Great, now I can pay them for the spam they just sent me, and save them money by letting them off the hook for sending me a paper summary of my monthly cellphone spam...err charges.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[BemoanAndMoan]

The point is there isn't any competition in Canada's telco industry. It is run by a three-company triumvirate, who price-fix and freeze out the competition without so much as a nod by the conservative, lazy government.

But it is as typically short-sighted as most modern corporations are: they are greedy in the short term where can be, unjustifiably smug and contented in the fact that their sheep-like customers will just take it. You'd think that they'd be smart enough to realize that when real competition arrives they will collapse as battered customers flee like rats.

In Canada, these competitors will be arriving shortly and I can't imagine a single incentive that will keep me with Rogers (who, while not participating in this fiasco is equally bad in every other arena).

And for the record, when the new iPhone plans came out I reduced my entire family's accounts to their bare minimum, and made it quite clear that their loss of $200/month in revenue was directly because of their greedy indifference. Hopefully many more people did the same.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Telus/Rogers/Fido are the same company, Bell is just Bell.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Adambomb]

There has been constant collusion between Bell and Telus for quite some time. Keep in mind that they are in a network sharing agreement when it comes to Wireless service where Telus provides Bell with towers out west in canada, while Bell provides Telus customers the same out east. Both use CDMA based networks that transparently use each others technology, so having them both change at the same time definitely involved some collusion.

Crying anti-trust about telcos in canada does not seem to go very far though, as somehow the GSM companies side of the ledger is supposedly the balance. I'm pretty sure that having both of them change at the same time was actually a part of the strategy, as if one changed and the other did not it would weaken their argument that these charges are "necessary" due to the cost of maintaining the service.

I would love for someone in the court room to ask them 'if they had to double the revenue from pay-per-use sms because of the cost of having sms service, how would they suggest running any CDMA network without SMS even if its not available to the customers as a service?'.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're ignoring his main point, that they are under no obligation to pay when they receive this 'bill.' So either way you go, it'll end up in court eventually. As it should.

I have no idea how it works in Canada, but if you refuse to pay part of your cell phone bill in the US, they will turn off your phone and eventually send bill collectors. They won't sue you. There's no reason to.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Telus uses the Bell cellphone network. If Bell raises fees then so much Telus.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[lordofthechia]

It is an attempt to resolve the matter before taking it to court (and is something the courts encourage). Also it sends a nice message to the companies. I'd wager most cell phone companies are banking on the fact that most people will not call to complain since most people's time is worth more than $.15 here and there.

What the attorney had to say was interesting:
"You can control what you send out but not what you receive," "And people more fundamentally are fed up with unilateral modifications of the contract." So it's mainly about stealth changes to contracts and BS fees (now if ppl here in the good 'ol US will have a similar epiphany). Be nice if more companies were held accountable for non quid pro quo changes to contracts.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you sound like a Big Man.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look in your contract, you'll see that contract is a fluid document and can be changed and that change will be notified to you on your bill and thus binding because you accepted the agreement stating that you're okay with that.

If your going to send an invoice to a company (when you're actually just complaining to them and thinking you're karma incarnate), you'll need a business license (that carries a yearly fee), a GST number issued from the goverment, and you many want to decide if you'll to be 'Ltd' or 'Corp' or not as that will make you not personally responsible should you get sued by anyone or company.

You should also consider complaining about more valid things that have risen a lot more in cost in recent years than mobiles and their plans that really haven't changed much or got cheaper. Natural Gas, Electricity, Automotive Gasoline. Hell, even pop is worth more a concern. In a cost comparison, a can of pop costs say $1 and the deposit on that is additional 5 cents. That's more than what a text message is going to cost you compared to the service you're paying for.

But people don't like change until enough time has gone by. Yet they want to feel like they exist by complaining about change that gets accepted anyways.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly hope my provider doesn't do that. 90% of the messages I receive are SPAM FROM THE PROVIDER.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[moortak]

Yes, but being hit by bricks tends to drag down your quality of life.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[kesuki]

it's not just spammers. think wrong numbers! we're putting in tons of new area codes to deal with the cellular problem (assigning numbers to every person, perhaps several for each person if work numbers etc get counted) think kids who text 1500 messages a day, what if they 'enter in' a friends phone number in their cell, and try to text you 4-5 times, before you get fed up and call them and explain they got the wrong number...

every text message i've received has been a wrong number, because my carrier doesn't sell numbers to spammers, and doesn't 'automatically' generate telephone or cell phone listing pages for spammers to harvest. If you can prove your carrier actually SOLD your number to a SMS spammer, they're in even worse trouble, if they're actually charging you for each inbound text message.. it's called racketeering here in the states.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[yabos]

There's a reason they're nick named Bellus.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[dontmakemethink]

It's not a matter of like/dislike, it's straight economics. The policy change unreasonably takes up my time to prevent what is tantamount to theft. Changing service providers unreasonably takes up my time and will require that I replace the phone I bought last month. I'm self-employed, my time costs between $35 and $75 per hour depending on what I'm doing. When a job takes longer than it should, I become unavailable to take future projects. Work delayed == work lost. Sitting on the phone unnecessarily costs me money. (and don't give me a hard time about wasting time here, my computer is currently processing 3 hrs of live recordings)

SMS is easier to filter than email, and my Gmail account filters everything very effectively, so I know it is within their ability to filter the spam more effectively, but they don't. As long as they knowingly let spam through it is unreasonable to charge for incoming SMS, especially since there is no way to disable SMS/MMS, which is exactly what I would prefer rather than switch service providers.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[dontmakemethink]

By serving notice on the service provider before the policy change, the justification is made clear. Whether it's "legal justification" or not is up to a judge. The service provider has been notified of the charges and has several options:

- change their policy so to not incur the charges
- improve their spam filtering
- change their website so it's easy and fast to notify them of spam for charge reversal (which would also help them identify and filter spam)
- cancel my account

If I filed a claim for fees according to the written notice, the service provider would have to give good reasons for why they did not take each of the above actions.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[T Murphy]

Maybe it is different in Canada, but you can get out of a contract if the provider creates a materially adverse change in the contract, such as this. Maybe it varies whether you have a texting plan, but I would be surprised if most people really can't get out of their contracts. Those of you who read http://consumerist.com/ know this already. If you search "cellphone contract" you can find out a lot about your rights with regard to your cellphone provider.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[!coward]

Yeah, I too would like that point made clear.

FTA, it seems this is a new thing in Canada, but your (cayenne8's) reply seems to imply that where he/she lives it's been SOP for some time.. Is that right?

Are people charged for _incoming_ text messages on the US? Really? Forget the whole "package plan" or whatever -- is _anyone_ being charged for _incoming_ traffic, traffic that someone else originated?

Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense to me. Aside from SMS services you _subscribe_ to (weather, stock quotes, sport results, etc), absolutely no one is charged with SMS they receive where I live.

I mean, I can certainly understand being charged for incoming text messages and phone calls when you're roaming -- most operators here actually allow you to restrict incoming SMS and MMS when you're roaming for that reason alone. But that's it. Whether you have a pretty substancial monthly package plan, or a simple pay-as-you-go service, you most definitely DO NOT pay for incoming traffic, be it text messages or incoming calls. Let alone pay for unsolicited commercial messages that generate profit for that 3rd party (or your operator). I don't know what the actual legal name for that is, but it's ilegal, plain and simple. And believe me, if the terms of service/contract were changed to allow such practise, you'd see an uproar.. As it is, operators already charge way too much for text messaging.

For crying out loud, we even have smaller Cell Phone Operators offering free sms/mms/voice AND video calls FOR FREE within their network for _life_ -- and this is on a run of the mill pay-as-you-go service, NOT some high-priced monthly package. You sign up to their service, pay an initial fee of â10 or something, and then it's standard pay-as-you-go: you charge your phone with how much you want, when you want to charge it.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[rtb61]

It actually also happened in Australia. The major Telco Telstra was sending SMS advertising to it's customers and charging them for receiving it. As you can image this was not well received and put before the consumer watch dog the ACCC, successful for the customer outcome, the charges had to be repaid and the adds ceased.

I would have thought there was a similar government department in Canada for tackling issues like these on behalf of the public, with out the public having to resort to class action law suits.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[cayenne8]

"Are people charged for _incoming_ text messages on the US? Really? Forget the whole "package plan" or whatever -- is _anyone_ being charged for _incoming_ traffic, traffic that someone else originated?"

Sure...you get charged on both ends of calls and text messages...but, you usually get packages that take care of it all.

Now, one other thing that caught me off guard...the talk of 'spam' or advertisements coming over the cell phone unsolicited. I think it is actually against law in the US for a company to knowingly send advertisement or make sales calls to a cell phone, for precisely the reason that it would incur a charge on that person's phone. Kind of like it is illegal to send advertisements unsolicited to a fax machine here...due to cost of paper, etc.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Patersmith]

No, Bell, Rogers, and Telus are all independent from each other. However, once upon a time there was an alliance (cartel) of phone companies in Canada called the Stentor Alliance. This consisted of:

Maritime Tel & Tel (Nova Scotia)
Newfoundland Tel
Island Tel (Prince Edward Island)
New Brunswick Tel
Quebec Tel
Bell Canada (Ontario)
Manitoba Tel
Sask Tel
Alberta Gov. Tel
BC Tel
Northwest Tel

Back in the early 1990s, BC Tel was spun off from the Alberta government and eventually became a private company. About 10 years ago Stentor was broken up and Bell and Telus went on an eating frenzy. Bell swallowed up MT&T, NBTel, NewTel, and IslandTel (it's more complicated than that but that's the sum and substance). Telus ended up swallowing BCTel and Quebec Telephone. So now we have Telus and Bell with a few remaining regional incumbent carriers (SaskTel, ManitobaTel, and NorthwestTel).

Rogers came into being as a phone carrier, as I recall, when it bought out the competing (as opposed to incumbent) CanTel AT&T cell carrier. Rogers already existed as a cable TV provider in Ontario at that time. This would've been late '90s, early 2000s. Rogers is currently the carrier with the largest number of cell customers. Although their reputation has been tarnished on the internet side through their throttling activities the last few years, they have a decent name in Ontario. However, as cell service goes, Rogers is synonymous with poor quality (but cheaper) service in the east.

Rogers (as far as I'm aware) is the only carrier that uses GSM cell technology. Bell and Telus both use CDMA although I was just reading the other day that they are planning to switch to a GSM-like technology. I believe there is some agreement in place between Bell and Telus to permit the other to offer service in each other's respective territories. At least that's the case in Bell/Aliant territory. Telus has no towers here but you can get Telus-branded services and phones.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Anonymous Coward]

though i do not have a slashdot acct yet, i feel the need to point out that i'm one of those "rascals" who actually maintain a seperate "fictitious identity" to have my phone/utilities registered in..in the instance of my cell phone, it's registered to someone who doesn't actually exist, but manages to pass a credit check anyway.
it's a long story but it has at the root a short tale of a 15 year old kid without the sense gave a who ended up with a severe case of stolen identiy before he was 18.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[William Ager]

Yes; almost everyone in the US is charged for incoming texts, and most plans also charge for incoming calls. Additionally, in most cases, there appears to be no way to restrict incoming messages: someone who wants to cause your phone bill to be higher can do so rather easily. The situation really doesn't make much sense, but, like SIM locking, essentially all providers in the country do it, and there isn't really any recourse for customers.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Pebby]

Oh crap, if Slashdot is turning into Digg, that means the DNS cache has been poisoned! Why don't we practice what we preach?!

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[!coward]

Also replying to the post above:

That's.. unbelievable, I guess is the word. Really, there's absolutely no justification for that. You want to call or text someone, you pay for the charges -- period.

The only thing I can see here is when your calling/texting someone who's supposed to be, by their phone's prefix, in a certain area, and that person actually happens to be somewhere else. You'd pay what for all intents and purposes would be the roaming costs.

But assuming you're calling/texting someone with the same prefix as your own number, and both you and the receiver is within the "designated" area, both on the same operator, do you still pay for incoming texts/calls?

The problem I see with most "foreign dogs" like myself, who'll likely find this practice obnoxious like I did, is that we forget how huge your country is, and that you're a Federation of States. I'd imagine that each State has its own operating rules and taxes, and for traffic seemingly going back and forth across several States' lines, using infrastructure owned/operated by different companies, there's additional fees that apply. Depending on the situation, it could make sense charging some of those to the receiving party.

But as we've seen it discussed many times before, the current prices for cellular communications, especially when it comes to text messaging, are already way too high -- to press this further on the people who have no control over what they receive is greedy and just plain wrong.

As the poster above said, Telcoms would not get away with it in most other countries.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the matter is breach of contract, then it should be dealt with accordingly. There are mechanisms in society to deal with these sorts of issues, and they don't involve billing people without legal justification.

Maybe, but you miss the point.

ALL providers are considering this, meaning you can't cancel the contract and move elsewhere.

If money is the only way to get their attention, sue for it. It's the American way...you're familiar with it, yes?

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am lucky in that I do not get charged for that, just every other text.

Re:Rather unjustifiable reactions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, isn't there an anti-trust issue here? It seems to me that there was collusion between Bell and Telus, who both decided to charge exactly the same amount for incoming text messages, at around the same time. Are Bell and Telus the same company?

Also, isn't there an anti-trust issue here? It seems to me that there was collusion between Bell and Telus, who both decided to charge exactly the same amount for incoming text messages, at around the same time. Are Bell and Telus the same company?

Also, isn't there an anti-trust issue here? It seems to me that there was collusion between Bell and Telus, who both decided to charge exactly the same amount for incoming text messages, at around the same time. Are Bell and Telus the same company?

nope, bell owned by sympatico. telus independent for now.
in Canada here how it goes
Fido & rogers
telus
Aliant & bell = owned by sympatico
virgin
which are all basically owned by foriegn companies now :(

True facts
We Canadians pay more in cellphone & blackberry data usage then any other developed country!
my old Telus phone was only pay & talk under 50$ a month with "unlimited" features (which on my bills l noticed & got no response was 0.50 to 2.50 on "correction fees"?) now there pulling this shit on billing incoming text? it isn't just spam, its ALL incoming texts.
l have/had a
Rogers, aliant, bell, telus.
Fuck them all.
CANADA DON'T BUY CELLPHONES! BOYCOTT! Hard to do it but even one month would crush there market considerably too force a clear message, stop fucking with us.

Only reason why l never went on a plan with telus, they said i had bad credit (which is funny when l went around too different companies, even went to my bank they said i was GOOD) telus wanted 1000& NON-REFUNDABLE security deposit? Yes, NON-REFUNDABLE!?

Fuck cellphone companies.

What a rip

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

I'm glad this sort of shit doesn't happen in Australia, only the sender of an SMS/phonecall gets charged here

Re:What a rip

[QuantumG]

Heh, except for those stupid "send me a ring tone" things, where they charge you $4.99 per message and you have to call an unhelpful man in India you get it canceled.

Re:What a rip

[solkimera]

Same in Mexico. The only charge you can get for receiving a phone call is roaming, actually.

Re:What a rip

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

which is the users own fault for signing some random form without reading the fine print...

Re:What a rip

[QuantumG]

They don't even need to sign a form. They just send a text to a number they see on tv with "sign me up" or something. Sure, all the fine print is right there on the tv when the instructions are displayed, but frankly, I think the whole thing is abhorrent and the network providers are complacent.

Re:What a rip

[TheCybernator]

.... you have to call an unhelpful man in India you get it canceled.

That man is unhelpful because that unethical American/Canadian company told (hired/paid) him to be so.

Re:What a rip

[Anonymous Coward]

But some ISPs have started counting upload usage as download usage. I know iinet is doing this. Is this not the same thing?

Re:What a rip

[kiddygrinder]

even more amusingly, you can simply sign up someone you don't like via a website simply by knowing their phone number. good times.

Re:What a rip

[ChoboMog]

I'm glad this sort of shit doesn't happen in Australia, only the sender of an SMS/phonecall gets charged here

All the more reason to be concerned...The fact that we were in your situation just a month ago shows how quickly you could end up in ours.

Re:What a rip

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad this sort of shit doesn't happen in Australia, only the sender of an SMS/phonecall gets charged here

All the more reason to be concerned...The fact that we were in your situation just a month ago shows how quickly you could end up in ours.

I don't see this happening in Australia.

1) The market has moved many plans to provide effectively free sending of sms.
2) There are 2 government organisations watching the industry. One purely for telecommunications, TIO. The second a general consumer affairs, ACA. Plus loads of well respected private groups, lobbyists etc.
3) If a contract is substantially changed you have the right to cancel it. Generally if telcos want to make changes they are reflected in the contracts on offer, they don't alter contracts midway.

Re:What a rip

[dwater]

> don't like

What's to stop you signing up people you like, or even have no real opinion on?

Re:What a rip

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the same here. I work in a call centre for one of the main UK mobile phone networks (thus AC), and this is one of the biggest complaints I get. People call up asking why their credit is disappearing (I'm on the Pay As You Go department), and I explain that they've been receiving these texts which have been taking £1.50 a time.

It's not the fact that someone can be charged £1.50 for an individual message, it's the fact that these companies can send out many messages at the same time and bill you individually for each message. I once spoke to a gentleman who had lost a total of £18 from 12 messages that he received at once. Thankfully he took the news well.

In Europe, no provider can charge to receive text messages. Well, in theory they could, but would probably have a mass exodus of customers since the very idea of being charged to receive texts is a ludicrous one. Unfortunately though, this leads to the above situation where people don't realise that they're being billed £1.50 a time to basically receive crap to their phone.

In short, Jamster, Red Circle, Zamano , et al= Biggest pain in the arse for the UK mobile phone industry.

Re:What a rip

[Yvan256]

Spam issues aside, unless you don't have control over your computer, you decide what to download and what to upload.

You don't decide who sends you SMS messages.

Re:What a rip

[Anonymous Coward]

So they bloody should.
I'd rather that than they have arbitrary "we can't tell you how much is too much" limits to "Unlimited" plans.

Re:What a rip

[pnewhook]

Those help centers in India are useless. My boss once lost his skiis with Air Canada and the luggage tracking call center was in India. The guy didn't even know what skiis were, let alone know where they were.

Re:What a rip

[pnewhook]

And unless you have a hi-def TV, you cant even read most of the small print.

Re:What a rip

[kiddygrinder]

Remind me not to get on your good or indifferent side....

Re:What a rip

[Anonymous Coward]

Then repeatedly sign up the CEO of said cell provider until the problem goes away...

Re:What a rip

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. I remember a few years ago seeing all those "after rebate" fine prints on computer & accessory prices in North America, and fearing such evil would soon find its way down under.
    Sure enough, it didn't take long.
There are no limits to the greed of Telstra, our local "baby bell" monopoly, but fortunately there is competition in the mobile market, and a degree of consumer protection from the ACCC (who are currently standing up to eBay).

Re:What a rip

[electrictroy]

If you can't read the print, then it has no force of law.

It is null and void.

Re:What a rip

[quenda]

2) There are 2 government organisations watching the industry. ... The second a general consumer affairs, ACA.

ACA? A trashy tabloid TV-show is our best hope?

Re:What a rip

[initialE]

This sounds criminally wrong, and something worthwhile pursuing in a class action case.

Re:What a rip

[ceoyoyo]

Yeah, that's how it used to work here too (and still does with the other provider). It only took two companies looking at their text usage stats and getting greedy to change it though. Don't be too smug - it could be you tomorrow.

Re:What a rip

[SilverJets]

The problem is that cell carriers in Canada allow e-mails sent from outside their network to reach their customers. So sending an e-mail to 5551234567@telus.ca results in the person with that phone number receiving a message that they will now have to pay for. The sender isn't paying for anything (other than access to the internet through their ISP).

Luckily not many spammers have started exploiting this yet....but they will.

Re:What a rip

[Mattsson]

Exactly.
How can you have a system where you pay to receive something that you can not choose to not receive?

Charging someone to receive voice calls, video calls, sms messages, mms messages, mail, anything at all, is a ridiculously stupid system.
If it was implemented that way here, I'd choose not to have a mobile phone at all.
Unless the operator could let me have a whitelist of numbers to receive calls and messages from and block everything else.

Re:What a rip

[pnewhook]

I doubt that is true - otherwise everyone who signs a mortgage they want to get out of would claim that they didn't have their glasses on when they signed it and couldn't read it.

I believe all they need to show is that it is possible for a reasonable person to read it in normal conditions. They don't have to prove you can read the terms displayed while watching internet tv on your iPhone for example.

Re:What a rip

[kesuki]

They don't even need to sign a form. They just send a text to a number they see on tv with "sign me up" or something. Sure, all the fine print is right there on the tv...

no you're thinking of the 'legit' operations like the deal or no deal lucky case game.

fraud 'text message spam' works off a simple principal, step 1. set up a shell company 2. market clueless users. 3. rake in the dough. originally, some of the companies tried to pretend to be legit, like saying they'd text you once a week, etc for $1.99 a week, but they found out they couldn't recoup their losses for advertising on TV, so they got crooked and found they could take the money and run, but taking advantage of 'when' companies bill, to heavily spam e-mail spams for these sites, the last week of the month, so people don't see the charges for a month, and so the company can collect on a whole week of the scams before they ditch their shell corporation with all the money.

it's the # 1 problem in any country where sending an SMS to an arbitrary number can be bound as an 'electronic signature' because the scam is so easy to run, and so cheap, and yet you can reap massive rewards...

Re:What a rip

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to disappoint you, but it does. It's not as common as elsewhere in the world, but it definitely does happen here. I got spam called by an automated service claiming to be "1800-mum-dad" with an "urgent reverse-charges message". It spam called me non-stop for almost 5 hours.

There is also the usual set of opt-in blatant rip-offs found in early morning music video programs that claim to send you an mp3 ringtone for "only" $4.95 per message.. These will also continue to spam you, as is stated in their terms and conditions.

Re:What a rip

[ljraggy]

I agree, is Canada becoming like the USA? Why the hell would you have to Pay for a SMS that you didn't send. - - In regards to those SMS subscription services they should be BANNED, some can cost upwards of $25 per week.

Re:What a rip

[bh_doc]

I hope that was supposed to be the ACCC. I really do.

Re:What a rip

[kiddygrinder]

true, but i suspect it would be as fruitful as trying to catch clouds.

Why SMS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, why do service providers in the west still use SMS as a messaging service?
I'm in Japan and we use actual Email addresses for messaging and you only get charged normal packet fees (the same price for packets as you pay for browsing the web).

I think I answered my own question: money

Re:Why SMS?

[Gordonjcp]

Because SMS is generally free, at least in the UK and EU. It's only in the US, where they don't really understand how phones work, that they charge to both send and receive messages.

Show me one UK pay-monthly package that hasn't got at least 500 free SMSes per month, and I'll show you half a dozen more that do, often cheaper.

Re:Why SMS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless I'm terribly mistaken, China uses SMS and each message is cheap as dirt.

Re:Why SMS?

[hefa]

Does the technology used to deliver a message matter to you? As long as it gets delivered...

The different modes of addressing the message (phone number vs email-ish address) makes some difference tho, since you can give out your address to more people than you might want to give your phone number to (it's easier to change). When using phone numbers you don't have to ask (new) friends for both the number and the address tho...

Re:Why SMS?

[Anonymous Coward]

In South Korea only old people use e-mail.

Re:Why SMS?

[totally bogus dude]

I think the real reason is market inertia. I have a free email address provided by service provider on my phone, and I also have secure access to my own IMAP mailbox, but I never use them for messaging to/from people's phones for the simple reason that most people don't have email set up on their phone.

Since most people don't have it set up, most people don't think it's useful to have set up, and therefore don't bother with it. It's one of those things where it's only useful if it's widespread.

SMS works everywhere, and so it's useful.

Another issue with email is that it requires maintaining a data connection, and that uses up more battery life than just keeping the regular GSM signal available.

A final issue with email is that most of the built-in email clients in phones are pretty shit. My phone (Nokia N-series) has an IMAP client, but it only lets you see one folder which limits its usefulness. But since most people don't use email there's little incentive for them to spend time creating better ones.

Re:Why SMS?

[Ash-Fox]

Because SMS is generally free, at least in the UK and EU.

No, it isn't.

Using Skype to send text messages (and Skype calls) is free though on my mobile phone.

I live in the UK.

Re:Why SMS?

[muffen]

Honestly, why do service providers in the west still use SMS as a messaging service? I'm in Japan and we use actual Email addresses for messaging and you only get charged normal packet fees (the same price for packets as you pay for browsing the web).

I think I answered my own question: money

I think there are a lot more reasons for using SMS then money.

1) You can find phonenumbers quite easily in the phonebook, the same cannot be said about email addresses. Furthermore, not everyone adds email addresses under the contacts, but it is likely they do add the phonenumbers.
2) Not everyone has, or is willing to spend the money to get, a phone that is capable of sending and receiving emails.
3) Not everyone has a clue on how to get email to their phone configured, even in the unlikely case they have an email account that they are able to sync to the phone.
4) They might not want data fees added to their phone contracts.
5) Inside the EU, SMS generally cost either nothing or next to nothing to send, and I would like to see the day an operator wants to charge for receiving an SMS.
I'm sure there are more reasons but these are the ones I can think of straight away.

Re:Why SMS?

[xaxa]

OK. These are SIM only contracts:

Orange "Dolphin 10" is 150 anytime minutes plus 300 texts for £10.
O2 "Online 15" 200 minutes, 400 texts for £15
Vodafone "£15" 250 minutes, 100 texts for £15

Can you get unlimited texts for less than £15/month?

(For comparison, pay-as-you-go text messages are around 5-12p, depending on the deal.)

Re:Why SMS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Inclusive != Free

Re:Why SMS?

[Skye16]

Considering that it costs me 45$ a month to add data to my plan, per phone (it's a family plan), and 15$ to add unlimited SMS for all phones, it's not even close regarding text/email.

You're getting a text, buddy, whether you can receive email on your phone or not. I'm not wearing gold pants, yanno.

Re:Why SMS?

[MBGMorden]

A lot of people in the US use regular email too - BlackBerries (which are increasingly common and popular) generally favor email comms over SMS (even though it's capable of both).

Re:Why SMS?

[k_187]

you do know that you can send sms to an email address right? For the major carriers in the US you can append an @somethingorother.com to a 10-digit cell phone number and it'll be recieved as SMS

Re:Why SMS?

[loraksus]

Because SMS is generally free, at least in the UK and EU. It's only in the US, where they don't really understand how phones work, that they charge to both send and receive messages.

Incoming texts were free (well, included) in the USA - up to about a year and a half ago. Then, all the major players had a circle jerk where the idea was brought up and now incoming texts get charged.

Now it's happening in Canada. I'm sure when a few of the big players see how they can make a shitload of money, it'll happen there eventually.

The really big issue here is cell phone companies have extremely abusive contracts - they change something like this - but pretend that the "contract" is still valid, and will still send you bills and to collections if you don't pay.

So what to do? Sue? Good luck - the cell phone companies have "mandatory binding arbitration" clauses. The arbitration companies are, of course, completely corrupt, ruling in favor of the cell phone company in 95+% of cases. Several court cases have resulted in the clause being stricken, so now they write different contracts for different areas. If they can get away with it, they do, until someone fights a costly case in their circuit court.

IMHO, the situation needs people throwing hammers through the windows of Bell and Telus stores while yelling "unsolicited incoming text message". I think that would be far more effective than a class action.

Re:Why SMS?

[socsoc]

It's only in the US, where they don't really understand how phones work

Hey, I know enough to mash the keypad when I require a special dialing wand.

Re:Why SMS?

[socsoc]

The various iterations of AT&T have been charging for all texts for close to 7 years now. A few years back I worked in a retail shop that sold Tmob, Sprint and Cingular, no free texts there either.

I definitely agree with your hammer idea though.

carriers should apply common sense....

[get quad]

Unlimited Data Plans Should Include Unlimited Texting. Period. Anything Else Is Criminal.

Re:carriers should apply common sense....

[NoobHunter]

well then! That Explains it!

Unlimited Data in Canada is considered Devil Worship....we don't server that kind up here!

If the Iphone in Canada has proven ANYTHING....it's how greedy Ted Rogers truly is.

Should be illegal anyway

[TheJasper]

Regardless of whether people know in advance that they are being charged for incoming SMS this should be illegal. Smart people wouldn't agree to such a contract anyway. Basically someone has the right to take all your money without notice. It is no better than loansharking if you think about it.

Re:Should be illegal anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a lame excuse, many parts of canada are only serviced by one or two providers, and 2 out of 3 of the providers are adopting this.

So, the choice is agree with whatever they're suddendly asking for or give up cell phones. Only dumb people accepting it???

Contracts?

[p0tat03]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but aren't contracts breakable without termination charges if the service provider changes the contract? There's a time limit on this, but it's fairly generous. I know people who got out of their Bell/Telus contracts recently precisely BECAUSE of the SMS fee.

Now, the fact that all the wireless providers in Canada are dirty crooks is another story altogether. Quitting your contract won't help much, you'll just get gouged somewhere else.

I think Canadian telecom (and to a lesser extent in the US) is proof solid that a laissez-faire approach to regulation and the institution of "free market" principles in an industry where the government GUARANTEES monopoly (via last mile, etc.) simply doesn't work.

Jim Prentice is a corporate crony who should be kicked out of office, preferably thrown in jail for so blatantly selling out the Canadian people's interests. His broken-record touting of "free market will be best" on the telecom issue is laughably absurd for anyone who's had to pay a phone bill in the last 10 years. What a change the Conservative government has brought us. Now instead of the Liberals selling out the Canadian people little bits at a time under the table, the Conservatives are having a firesale blowout with no regard for public opinion.

Re:Contracts?

[nacturation]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but aren't contracts breakable without termination charges if the service provider changes the contract?

The problem is that people are agreeing to contracts which say they agree the provider can change the terms of the contract. Read the Slashdot (SourceForge) terms of service... they essentially say that SourceForge can change the terms, it's up to you to monitor them for changes, and 14 days later if you keep using the site it means you agree. They could change it and say that your full name and email address will be made public on every post unless you cancel your account. The only difference here is that with these providers you're bound to a contract and you've agreed in advance to whatever changes are arbitrarily made.
 

Re:Contracts?

[Anonymous Coward]

In all Canadian Cell Phone contracts, (unlike the American ones) they say no matter what, if you break your contract for any reason that you must pay early termination fees. Which are generally @ 20$/month to a max of 400 or just 400 straight. (And usually, there's also a separate Data Early Termination fee, which can be added to your original ETF to another max of 400, which equals a possible $800 ETF) They also give themselves full rights to introduce new charges or jack up prices, like when bell upped it's "system access fee" by 2 dollars.

Now if any of these things are enforceable by contract law (them playing if we say it on the contract, then less people will break, but actually it's possible to break), I don't know. For example, if you move to another location where they cannot service you, the contract is unenforceable legally. I bet although they can weasel their way out of that with their world wide roaming agreements, so you have to move to somewhere really isolated for that to work.

Yes, our cell provider duopoly (Rogers & Bellus) really, really sucks.

Re:Contracts?

[Splab]

Except it's a legal minefield when you are handling customers from outside the US where such shenanigans are prohibited.

Re:Contracts?

[Carewolf]

Such a clause in a contract is natually invalid. You can not agree to unspecified or future terms, in a contract you only agree to specified a terms, and specifying unspecified terms is not magic loophole any court accepts.

Re:Contracts?

[Piranhaa]

It is a clear violation of the contract even if it says "We reserve the right to change pricing from time to time". Just like the other party can't change the amount he or she wants to pay, the telecom can't change what they want to charge (doubtful it would hold up in court regardless of what the contract says).

My dad called in to break his contract because of this - he has a company phone now. After much argument with one of the outsourced agents, they patched him to a 'supervisor' that said that TELUS isn't 'changing' the contract or pricing, but they're simply no longer SUBSIDIZING incoming text messages. The supervisor said she would add on 250 outgoing / UNLIMITED incoming texts so he would get off his back, and thus not allowing him to break the contract. It's sad someone would need to go through that much hassle. TELUS and Bell both say they will reimburse for SPAM texts (great!).. However, who will want to call in (even if they catch it on their bill) about a measly 15 cent charge. One 15 cents spam text definitely adds up when it's distributed between thousands and thousands of people.

They pushed to digital by offering PER SECOND billing.. Shortly after the majority of people switched, they decided to bring it back to the infamous PER MINUTE billing. Our PAID FOR minutes don't carry over from month to month, there's consistently billing errors which always seem to be in favor of the telecom (never the consumer), text plans are still $10/month.

TELUS and Bell are justifying charging this saying that texting is putting a much larger load on the network than before. I was reading in the paper, and the number of texts sent is equivalent to about 4-5GB per day. I realize there is overhead and such, but really. If a network hasn't been upgraded by now (the telecom being too damn lazy to upgrade) to handle that much traffic, they shouldn't be providing service.

Re:Contracts?

[Piranhaa]

Just wanted to add..

Rogers and Bell are the ones that have a ($400?) cap.

TELUS goes another route, and has NO cap. If you sign-up and cancel a 3 year contract after 1 month of service. 35 months @ $20/mth penalty = $700 charge for a voice plan. Not sure about the data cancellation.

Re:Contracts?

[dword]

There's another problem: in many areas there is no other mobile network. As a businessman, I need a working mobile 24/7. They know that and the fact that I don't have any other choice. It's called monopoly. If Microsoft somehow legally started charging you hourly for using Windows, you'd switch to Linux, right? Well YOU would but you can't imagine the costs required to do that by most people who've bought hardware specifically for Windows because they need to run Windows applications. What about companies that have thousands of computers?
(I know this MS hourly charging isn't possible, it's just an analogy to help you think and realize that to some people canceling their contract is simply not an option)

Re:Contracts?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Next, are you going to tell me that I can't wish for more wishes?

Re:Contracts?

[cowlobster]

No but a lot of companies will say they reserve the right to change the terms of the contract, if they do, usually there's a 1 month period where you could cancel the contract.. and they're required to give you notice, but it's usually a big document with a small blurb hidden somewhere in it about that. and they don't mention that you have a month to cancel. when i worked for sprint, (i'm a canadian but we had american call centers), there was a few changes such as increased rates of text messaging, changes to how minutes were calculated.. where we recieved notices that if they wish to cancel specifically because of these things, until x date, then we'd waive their early termination fee. was a very fine line.

Re:Contracts?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can not agree to unspecified or future terms, in a contract you only agree to specified a terms, and specifying unspecified terms is not magic loophole any court accepts."

Yes, you're right. But I'm pretty sure the only legally guaranteed resolution to that issue is the termination of the contract, which, conveniently, involves loads of penalties which, equally conveniently, were already specified in great detail at the time the contract was signed.

It's kind of like you signing a contract with me that specifies that I can change the terms of the contract at any time, but that if you decide to terminate the contract I'm entitled to give you, oh, let's say it'll be a before you go.

And, surprise, suprise, it turns out that all the vendors have something equivalent to a "boot to the head" clause in their contracts. You can't force people to agree to unspecified terms, but there's nothing illegal about making the termination of the contract a costly, painful process.

Re:Contracts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn. That was supposed to be a "boot to the head". Darn link quotes.

Re:Contracts?

[Superpants]

The people with the problem of charging for incoming texts are mainly the ones without a contract and pay as they go. I think the telecom's strategy here isn't simply to charge more fees, but to entice the pay as you go customers to actually get into a contract as a solution to avoid paying the fees. It is interesting that all the CDMA carriers have gone ahead with this initiative while the sole GSM carrier Rogers/Fido hasn't. This would indicate that there is a collusive anti-competitive agreement between telus and bell and that in order to switch to rogers the customer will have to buy a new phone.

Thankfully, there was a spectrum auction a little while back and there is more competition on the way. Once these new upstarts get going, I am going to switch without hesitation and hope that telus, bell and rogers learn something about customer retention.

Re:Contracts?

[Cocoshimmy]

The contract may say that they can change the terms without notice, however in court this will have little effect and will in most cases work against the party that imposed those terms.

Think about it, lets say you are with provider A who has a plan you hate. Provider B comes along with what looks like a fantastic plan so you pay a $200 cancellation fee with A and sign a contract with B. After one month B tells you that they are now doubling the rates on your plan which makes it much worse a plan than provider A. Now you are out $200 and have a worse plan that costs you much more. Any court would see this as a breach of contract and assuming you have a competent lawyer, the judge would award you damages of at least $200 plus the difference in rates plus lawyer fees.

The term has no real life power in court except to scare and attempt to manipulate the consumer.

You may or may not have noticed the term which says "provider may change terms of contract at any time, etc" along with other one sided things, but as we all know these contracts are not negotiable. They are a take it or leave it contract and all providers have these so the consumer is at quite a disadvantage and really has no negotiating power. Courts recognize this as well and most of the time ,as long as you don't have a corrupt judge, the court should see that most reasonable people given a real choice would not agree to a contract that allows one party to weazel out of their commitments with no penalty while the other has to pay ridiculous cancellation fees.

Re:Contracts?

[AK Marc]

You can not agree to unspecified or future terms, in a contract you only agree to specified a terms, and specifying unspecified terms is not magic loophole any court accepts.

I'm not sure how it will fly in court, but they will (correctly) assert that you aren't agreeing to any future terms, any future changes in the contract, or anything else in the future. You are agreeing to a change mechanism for the current existing contract you are entering into at that moment. It isn't a way of making you agree to future terms, but a way of making you agree to the change mechanism for if they make future changes.

I would think that a mechanism that is so one-sided would be illegal. If they can change a website and if you don't check it you agree to changes in terms, you should be able to send an email to "admin@example.com" and inform them you are changing the terms and if they don't object in the same time frame, then they agree to the changes. Better yet, since they are changing them without proactively notifying you, set up your personal web site and change the terms and they must check the website of all users every 14 days or everyone can change the terms on them. I'm sure they find that unreasonable, but don't find it unreasonable when they do the same thing.

Of course, I make an exception for sites like Slashdot. They can't change the terms on any previous posts. They can change the terms whenever they want, and every future post falls under those terms. But for things like WoW where every patch requires you accept the terms again (with possible changes in a huge document), I'd require all changes be listed at the beginning and highlighted throughout the document. Leaving out a "not" in a 400 page document can change the meaning significantly, and no one would catch it.

Re:Contracts?

[VisceralLogic]

Credit cards include language to the effect that they can change the terms at any time, but when they do you have 30 days or so to opt out, in which case your account will be terminated instead of renewing when it expires.

Re:Contracts?

[AlphaFreak]

Here at Spain a court ruled that if a carrier modifies unilaterally a contract, any binding clause is void so the customer can break the contract for zero euros.

Re:Contracts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but aren't contracts breakable without termination charges if the service provider changes the contract?

The SMS fees are not covered by the contract terms. The contract says the cellphone company can change the SMS charges at will. Is that legal? I dunno.

His broken-record touting of "free market will be best" on the telecom issue is laughably absurd for anyone who's had to pay a phone bill in the last 10 years.

The free market hasn't worked out well for landline or cellphone service where there are large barriers to entry. The free market has been absolutely wonderful for long-distance service. Ten years ago I remember paying 35 cents a minute for calling Toronto-Montreal, and that was a great rate. Today I pay 3 cents a minute (from a major phone company).

Why are you picking on the Conservatives? You should blame the former Liberal government.

It was the former government led by the Liberal Party of Canada that allowed cellphone competition in Canada to disappear.

There used to be a number of major cellphone providers: Fido, Clearnet, Rogers, Bell, Telus.

The Liberals allowed Rogers to buy Fido, and Telus was allowed to buy Clearnet. Not surprisingly, prices jumped quite a bit afterward!

For decades it has been the law in Canada is that a phone company must be majority owned by Canadians, so foreign competition isn't allowed. I too would like a strong Canadian cellphone industry. But it's time to rethink this law.

I would rather Canada's cellphone industry be dominated by foreigners (AT&T, Tmobile, Vodaphone) than being screwed every month by Canadians.

The CEO of RIM (maker of the blackberry and a Canadian company) has said many times that the crappy prices & service of Canadian cellphone companies is holding back progress.

Canadians pay the worst prices in the western world for cellphone service. Not surprisingly, Canadians have the lowest cellphone ownership rates in the western world.

Canadian cellphone companies will claim this is because Canada is a large country with a small population, and this drives up costs. Bullshit. The vast majority of the Canadian land mass has no cellphone service. Canadian cellphone companies only provide service to areas of sufficient population. Unlike landline providers, cellphone companies are not required to provide service in areas of low population. Have a look at the coverage map of Rogers (the largest cellphone company) for Saskatchewan.

Re:Contracts?

[IronChef]

Correct me if I'm wrong... but aren't contracts breakable without termination charges if the service provider changes the contract?

That was a right-pretty speech, sir. But I ask you, what is a contract? Webster's defines it as "an agreement under the law which is unbreakable." Which is unbreakable! Excuse me, I must use the restroom.

Re:Contracts?

[MobileFoot]

From Bell's contract:

Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as obligating you to accept receipt of the Services after any change is made to this Agreement, the Services or otherwise; however, your sole remedy in the event of such a change shall be termination of the Services including the payment of any SAPA or DSAPA that may apply, upon providing 30 days advance written notice

. The SAPA and DSAPA are the early termination fees which are quite expensive (200$ in my case but it can go up to 400$). I wonder if the people you know that canceled their contracts got away with the early termination fees. I tried to cancel my contract but they got that clause and told me that would cost me 200$. I can't believe I'm stuck with this.

Re:Contracts?

[TechForensics]

Such a clause in a contract is natually invalid. You can not agree to unspecified or future terms, in a contract you only agree to specified a terms, and specifying unspecified terms is not magic loophole any court accepts.

As a (shudder) LAWYER I can tell you in the US that such clauses *are* OK so long as the change is not one which a judge (or jury) feels materially alters the bargain. What "materially alters the bargain" is up to the said judge or jury. An extra $3.00 per month on a $100.00 per month bill? Probably OK at least if some extra functionality is gotten for it, or if the carrier shows the charge enabled it to skip passing along other government fees to everyone, not just heavy text-receivers.

Now this is admittedly nebulous, but the whole reason we need juries is no law or contract can be detailed enough to cover all cases that arise.

Re:Contracts?

[yabos]

Rogers has a $100 cap on the ETF for their 6GB plan which they make you sign a 3 year contract(or agree to it on the phone).

Re:Contracts?

[Carewolf]

If a contract is cancelled the part that covers the cancellation fees is cancelled as well. If courts in the US has ruled otherwise, I guess you are screwed.

Re:Contracts?

[Carewolf]

True, but all that means is that the contract can be changed within the parameters of the contract, or changed so it is still in the spirit of the original contract. The issue at hand is whether they can change the scheme of billing; you now have to pay for incoming traffic. I would consider that a major change. It is certainly testable in court regardless of this contract.

Re:Contracts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a clause in a contract is natually invalid. You can not agree to unspecified or future terms, in a contract you only agree to specified a terms, and specifying unspecified terms is not magic loophole any court accepts.

Sounds good, but I'm gonna have to hit you with a [Citation Needed]

Not free in the EU

[Nicolas MONNET]

In fact it's damn expensive, around 10 cents a message.
That's because there is no real competition: in France, the three mobile operators have been fined over €600 million for anticompetitive collusion. There is room in the spectrum for a fourth operator, but Sarkozy's best bud with the existing ones (CEO godfather of his son) and since he's such a corrupt fucker, he is doing all he can to derail the allocation process.
But he's a right-wing "free market" advocate! Right!

Re:Not free in the EU

[remmelt]

> But he's a right-wing "free market" advocate! Right!

That's entirely in the line of expectation then, isn't it? He's free to manipulate the market in any way possible, and being head of the state puts him in the position to do exactly that.

The free market isn't all that ideal. More like the free-for-all market, double points for head shots.

Re:Not free in the EU

[drsmithy]

But he's a right-wing "free market" advocate! Right!

One must remember calling someone "right wing" in France is like calling someone "left wing" in the US. It means they might _just_ be getting close to the centre.

Re:Not free in the EU

[JasterBobaMereel]

Competition : the UK has four major mobile carriers none charge for incoming calls/SMS

The all over charge for SMS - and the regulator has noticed and is starting to take action (it is like a juggernaught slow to get going but unstoppable and unswerving...)

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[something_wicked_thi]

As a Canadian, I feel this is just us imitating the American way of doing things. However, it's unfortunate that we can't take full credit since he's a new immigrant and likely wasn't a citizen yet.

In other news, it strikes me as odd that you find the fact that children saw it the most disturbing bit about this. The children will be fine. The victim won't be.

Re:(shakes head)

[plasmacutter]

I don't think you're getting it. They're charging people for INCOMING text.

I don't use text, and believe in the kiss principle (thus my brick mobile which is as close to "just a phone" as you can buy), but I still receive text spam. More text spam in fact than email spam!

They're charging you for having text spam forced down your gullet by unsolicited third parties (which could include your carrier as well)

I think you missed the point

[Chrisq]

It is the person hitting someone with a brick who is then demanding a dollar for the service provided.

Re:(shakes head)

[AnonChef]

uh here's a thought:

DON'T USE TEXT!!

no use = no fees

Easy math, there folks. And I don't buy the 'incoming spam' thing - texting can be just disabled completely, at the provider level. Explain to me how it's a 'better' form of communication, anyway. Why not just make a phone call? Person's not there? Leave a message!

Any form of communication that is more expensive than Hubble - deal me out. I don't need it, when there are just so many other choices.

-1 Totally missed the point

Why does this happen at all

[houghi]

I can not understand why companies where allowed to do this in the first place.

In normal countries paying for something you did not ask for would be considered fraud. But then I live in a country (Belgium) where generally the customer is more important then the companies.

Re:Why does this happen at all

[Anonymous Coward]

But then I live in a country (Belgium)

Europe's cell phones are billed very differently than north american cell phones. In Europe, fees for incoming calls are caller paid, in North America fees for incoming calls are callee paid. It was a 'natural' extension for people to pay for incoming SMS messages too (of course they took the opportunity to also charge for sending text messages too, mainly because they could).

Re:Why does this happen at all

[loopkin]

But then I live in a country (Belgium) where generally the customer is more important then the companies.
aha ? can you spell "Belgacom" ? I believe it's spelled "r-i-p-o-f-f", with prices twice as expensive (even more) than in France and the Netherlands. Actually, it's one pretty good example of crony capitalism, as i heard...

For French-speaking readers: http://cretin.be/

Re:Why does this happen at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, you do ask for it when you sign the contract. When you sign the contract, you agree to everything written in it. In these contracts there is usually a clause that permits the provider to amend the contract without your permission. In this case, they amended the contract to add charges for incoming texts. Fortunately, in most cellphone contracts, there is also a clause that allows you to cancel your contract if you do not want to continue with your amended contract.

I'm not saying this is right. Just saying that this is how it works out legally. Personally I think it's a shady way of doing business.

Re:Why does this happen at all

[houghi]

In Europe, fees for incoming calls are caller paid, in North America fees for incoming calls are callee paid.

I would say the same for that as well. WTF where they thinking to allow this?

Re:Why does this happen at all

[Anonymous Coward]

How could it be that the sender of SMS does not pay and the receiver shall pay?
What would the next thing be?
Me paying for receiving your spammy e-mails?
Seems a bit awkward and stupid to me :-)

Re:Why does this happen at all

[squiggleslash]

The thinking is the person who chose the "final mile" should pay for the additional cost of that final mile. That is, if I choose to make myself available via a cellphone, it's not fair on my callers if I force them to pay for my choice in using a cellphone.

Obviously this makes sense for phone calls, where it's not as if you have to answer a call. For SMS messaging, where you don't get a choice about whether to accept a message or not, it just plain doesn't work.

In the US, cellphone operators have chosen to deal with the "incoming calls" issue via a variety of means, but essentially you get about double the amount of minutes you would get in, say, the UK, for the same subscription, almost always coupled with a fairly generous unmetered element. Around $50 per month will get you unmetered nights and weekends, plus unmetered calls to other people on the same network at any time of day or day of the week, plus around 500 minutes to use for the remaining metered calls (incoming and outgoing.) I seriously doubt there are many phone users, outside of pre-paid, who have a single problem with the incoming calls issue.

For text messaging, the situation is more complex, with most operators giving you a ridiculously expensive per-message rate for incoming and outgoing messages (T-Mobile's prices have quadrupled in the last three or four years), but offering some kind of bolt-on to your plan that either bundles a large number of messages or makes them completely unlimited.

Re:Why does this happen at all

[dwater]

> In normal countries paying for something you did not ask for would be considered fraud.

I commit fraud if I pay someone for something that I didn't ask for?!?

Normal country, my arse. Remind me never to go to such a 'normal' country (Belgium).

Re:Why does this happen at all

[j_sp_r]

The caller knows he is calling a cell isn't he? At least, here all cells start with 06-

Re:Why does this happen at all

[Muad'Dave]

No, there's no sure-fire way to know a phone number is cellular. Land line and cellular phone numbers share area codes and in some cases prefixes.

US phone numbers are structured like this: AAA-PPP-NNNN. A=Area code (large geographic area; used to be 1 or 2 per state pre-cell phones); PPP=Prefix. Unique within an area code. Denotes a locality, like a town or city. NNNN=number within the area code/prefix.

With the rise is popularity of cell phones and number portability, the number of area codes has exploded and the area code to location mapping that used to be absolute is now fraying. Since I can keep my Virginia cell phone number if I move across country, the area code means a lot less than it used to.

Re:Why does this happen at all

[elgatozorbas]

The thinking is the person who chose the "final mile" should pay for the additional cost of that final mile. That is, if I choose to make myself available via a cellphone, it's not fair on my callers if I force them to pay for my choice in using a cellphone.

This holds in Europe too, but only for roaming. People know they are calling a cell phone (prefix) and will be charged accordingly. However they cannot know the callee is e.g. abroad and roaming another network, which adds to the cost. The additional cost for this roaming is paid for by the callee because he caused it and could have refused the call.

Re:Why does this happen at all

[houghi]

if I choose to make myself available via a cellphone, it's not fair on my callers if I force them to pay for my choice in using a cellphone.

In all European countries it is clear that you are calling a cellphone. It is still the caller that can decide whether he wants to call and pay or not.

It is as if I pay a minimum in stamps and you are forced to pay the rest, no matter what I send you. Interested in a few pounds of paper advertisement?

Re:Why does this happen at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Belgium's consumer protection laws are pretty poor. Many shops have signs saying "No refund/return on sales goods" - that would be an automatic fine in the UK. Some even charge you up to 100 Eur admin fee & security costs if you're accused - not convicted - of shoplifting. Then I've heard of people trying to get things repaired under warranty and it took six months - during which the warranty period was still running, so when it broke again two weeks after it came back they were SOL. As to recourse through the courts there is not, AFAIK, anything like the British small claims system. So even if your case is heard before you die of old age, and you win, you're still out of pocket for the legal fees.

Re:Why does this happen at all

[socsoc]

Parent has a good point. Although I live in Cali, so I kinda disagree with the 1 or 2 per state, even pre cell phones :) I had memorized a few local cell prefixes, but now with number portability it's damn near impossible to know what type of number you are calling. I didn't know about the obvious cell number prefix in the UK, seems like a fairly good idea.

I do find it pretty odd that we can move across the country and keep the same cell number, but moving across town to a different central office and suddenly they can't support your previous number...

Re:Why does this happen at all

[Pig Hogger]

But then I live in a country (Belgium) where generally the customer is more important then the companies.

This is why Belgium is teetering on the edge of extinction.

Re:Why does this happen at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Note to self: Move to Belgium... stat.

Re:(shakes head)

[immakiku]

uh sometimes people can't vocally speak? there's plenty of other reasons. bad reception, need quick back and forth between multiple people, feel like having a record, etc. when you are trying to avoid a technology altogether because of stupid policy issues, you're in no way helping progress.

Yes and no.

[Chrisq]

Yes, if you want to change a contract you have to start a new one. This either means continuing the old one for its duration, termination by mutual agreement or more commonly by invoking a "we may terminate any time..." clause.

Very often in practice however companies lawyers will have put a lot of small print in, saying things like "we can vary our charges and basis for charge at any time". This means that they can change the parameters of an existing contract without terminating.

The changes may or may not be legally enforceable. Usually changes in line with inflation, etc. are considered OK but in cases like this it is not clear, hence the class action suit.

This is an economic issue.

[purpledinoz]

The real problem is that the Cellular companies are pretty much a monopoly. It's the Government's fault for not allowing foreign competition and allowing all the wireless companies to merge. This issue is a clear sign for the government that competition is badly needed and we have no one to blame except the moron officials who allow monopolies. Bell, Telus, and Rogers are in the business of making money, and they are able to do this by reducing service and increasing fees.

Re:This is an economic issue.

[Gopchandani]

In Pakistan, they would never charge for incoming SMS and one can send unlimited outgoing SMS for as low as Rs. 3 (USD 0.04) per day. Guess, we have the missing competition in Canadian market. But consumer pays with quality compromise at times with SMS delivery latencies increasing in peak-traffic hours and timeslots for calls halved.

Re:This is an economic issue.

[fprintf]

one can send unlimited outgoing SMS for as low as Rs. 3 (USD 0.04) per day.

Let me guess where all this incoming SMS spam is coming from. On my plan I have to pay for incoming and outgoing text messages, about $.08 USD for each one.

Re:This is an economic issue.

[oblivionboy]

Libertarians out in force again!

Because the other solution, which makes more sense is to regulate what has always basically been a crown corporation market.

Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

I came to this article expecting Canadians to have some form of superior civil rights, allowing them to pull such shenanigans as suing their cell phone service providers for incoming text messages. This sounds like a change in the terms of service, but most companies in any business reserve the right to change the terms freely and possibly without notice. This is the case every time you accept a contract or an EULA. But, I feel relieved that this is not another reason being in America sucks. (Americans are already charged for incoming texts, so get over it Canada.)

My relief lies in these points:
1. The poster is clearly unaware of cell phones which have options to not download a text message until you approve it, it's kind of like voice mail. Lots of my friends who don't like to waste time typing on a standard QWERTYless keyboard buy phones with this feature.
2. One of those class action band wagon riders will eventually read their contract and they can drop their silly case before the cell phone company brings up all their reserved rights to grab you by the balls and torture all the money right out of you. (It's even more laughable that the original poster thinks he can make up reasons to bill people when he didn't do anything to earn their money other than cry.)
3. I don't get, nor have I ever gotten spam texts. Simply put, lol, lol at you Canada.

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

wrt point 2.
I think the point of the lawsuit is to have those terms chucked. 'We reserve the right to grab you by the balls and torture all the money right out of you' is probably not enforceable.
As for billing someone for costs incurred to you by their cock-up, what's wrong with that?

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen a cellphone where you can disable TEXTS. I believe you're thinking MMS (data messages that can carry video, pictures, animations, etc).

Texts, as I know it, cannot be stopped unless they are from the carrier. In Canada, the carrier doesn't allow one to disable incoming or outgoing TEXTS (only MMS)

Re:Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

The poster is clearly unaware of cell phones which have options to not download a text message until you approve it

I'm unaware of them too. Could that be because they're a figment of your imagination?

Re:(shakes head)

[Fjandr]

The post seemed straightforward and logical to me. You can't be charged for incoming text if text messaging is disabled on an account. Some providers make it easier than others to disable text service on a phone. Sprint is mildly annoying to disable, T-Mobile is no-thought-required easy. No experience with other providers, but it's still possible. Non-chargeable system texts still come through.

The people who get screwed are those who use texting but don't have unlimited plans.

Raising prices

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition, although everything incoming (calls, text, etc) are free on my plan, US cellular sent me a letter that they were raising the SMS rates. I wrote a nastygram back.. at least incoming is free, but what a rip.

This is going to cost you

[iamapizza]

This is a reply to the Slashdot post "Canadians File Class Actions Over Incoming SMS Fees". You must pay me for reading this.

Re:(shakes head)

[Piranhaa]

-2 Missing point..

There's not even a way to OPT OUT of texting entirely. The consumer is stuck with the service whether or not he or she even wants it.

How stupid is that?

God damn!

[Anonymous Coward]

there are frequently highly moderated posts about the lack of quality in summaries. I just wanted to say what a damn fine job that article comment/summary was. Fucking A+ well done /.

Re:(shakes head)

[clickclickdrone]

There's a bit of a cultural divide here. I understand SMS never really took off in the US the way it has in the UK & Europe where many people send dozens a day. I know teens who send hundreds a day. For lots of people that's the only thing they use their phones for. I certainly have an SMS to 'voice call' ratio of about 10:1.

Re:(shakes head)

[Anonymous Coward]

Not stupid at all.

Now they can even charge you for their own ad-messages. Brilliant!

1. Send sms to customer.
2. Charge customer for said sms.
3. Profit.

Then you get a free solicitor

[Anonymous Coward]

They have to explain why they can bill you for something you never asked for and you can't bill them for something they never asked for.

Which should be difficult enough to make them decide not to bill you in the future.

Remember, if they start litigation, they have to pay a solicitor first and supply you with their argument. If you bring the suit, you have to give them the information.

Time to ditch SMS?

[knarf]

SMS has been and will be milked until the cow is not just dry but parched. The difference between actual cost and price of SMS is ludicrous. And as that actual price only goes down, why to they raise the price to the customer (I know, because they can...)?

Most modern phones can do GPRS or better... which, even though still overpriced, is quite a bit more affordable per bit than SMS. IM clients are available for many phones. Cost per message is radically lower, messages can be longer... What is missing? What would need to be added/removed to turn an IM client into a substitute for SMS so we can finally put that tired old cow to pasture?

  - it needs to start when the phone is turned on
  - it would be nice if the addressing scheme was compatible with phone numbers
  - it would need to keep open a data connection...
  - ...without incurring onerous fees...
  - ...or draining the battery...

Many people separate their email provider from their internet access provider, the same should be doable with mobile communications. It will be hard to make it as efficient as the provider can but that can not be helped. It is imperative to build something over which the provider has no power - other than the usual contract clauses or IP blocking antics. Those can be ignored, circumvented by using another provider or fought in court if needs be.

Re:Time to ditch SMS?

[dword]

SMS costs the phone companies almost nothing (this has been previously discussed on), that's why they're not offering too many alternatives and the alternatives that exist are quite expensive to Average Joe.

The way around this

[Anonymous Coward]

is to send them a change to the contract.

After all, it IS a "meeting of minds".

Then when they refuse, they must cancel the contract. Just have "continuation of the contract is considered acceptance of these terms".

Re:The way around this

[Chrisq]

In my experience the best way is just to cross out the bits you don't like, photocopy it before sending it off and send it.

I have only once had an "I'm sorry we cannot accept your business" response. When the mobile phone provider Orange set me a change in terms and conditions which said that accepting them would tie me in for another 12 months I crossed this out (I had already had a 12 month minimum term on sign up) and enclosed a note saying that I thought a further lock-in was unreasonable. They actually responded saying they accepted my contract on these terms!

Re:The way around this

[theblondebrunette]

As it has been mentioned previously on slashdot, it is not always a good idea to change contracts. The reason is that, when the text is unclear, it is usually resolved in favor of the person who did *not* write the text, i.e. the other party. If you are the one making the change, then you'd be the side to loose on.

See this slashdot, about employment contracts:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/27/029243

Re:The way around this

[TechForensics]

Up to about ten years ago, I practiced law. I would always write the harshest contract I could and leave objections, if any, to the other side (which more often than not was lazy enough to leave some things as written). Of course, I represented the good guys, and we *never* took advantage of some of those oppressive terms.

Well, hardly ever. (grin)

Re:(shakes head)

[Bastard of Subhumani]

You can't be charged for incoming text if text messaging is disabled on an account.

A rather drastic solution. Applying that logic, you can't be charged for anything if you don't have a phone. Is it really an unreasonable request to be able to recieve genuine messages but not spam - and at my own expense?

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[das3cr]

I highly doubt that the children will 'be fine.' I even doubt that the adults will 'be fine.' I do however see a hefty raise in the number of counseling patients in the future.

Besides that if it had been in the US, the cops would have shot him as would have only been proper.

anonymous coward

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no way I can concive that SMS should cost so much.
How in the world can an SMS message cost anything how much bandwidth do they consume? It's freakin plain text!
58000 text messages consumes less bandwidth than a 10 second phone call. How telcos have avoided being stomped on by the gov't and the people over this is beyond me .
Correct if I'm wrong but aren't phone calls like 5/kB per second of data? Is that not the equivalent of 5000 asci characters per second?

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Besides that if it had been in the US, the cops would have shot him

If it had been the US, one of the other passengers would have shot him.

Re:(shakes head)

[Skye16]

Because I can't stand talking to you. Telephones are for emergencies of the catastrophic sort only, e.g. "I'm on fire, please send help", "Wife is in the emergency room with a burst appendix", etc.

If it's anything less important than that, then you're a dick for using the phone.

Re:(shakes head)

[srijon]

Texting is popular in the UK (Europe?) because many people have pay-as-you-go phones, on which incoming calls are free (the callee pays extra to call a mobile phone) but outgoing calls are up to 25p a minute - so for a short message SMS is the cheapest option.

Re:(shakes head)

[Skye16]

I think you'd be surprised about how much it "took off" in the states. Even my father, who can't figure out how to program the time on his microwave, sends dozens of texts per day.

My ratio is somewhere near 1000:1. There's virtually nothing said in a phone conversation that can't be said more quickly in an SMS, and then no one is inconveniencing me. The phone is a mini-slave-driver, demanding your attention whenever the hell it rings. At least with a text you can finish pooping, masturbating, reading this chapter, washing the dishes, etc. Phone calls are very time sensitive and frankly, I don't like doing anything when someone demands it of me.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[das3cr]

If it had been the US, one of the other passengers would have shot him.

As would have only been proper!

where is the competition?

[Gearoid_Murphy]

The mobile phone market in Ireland is completely deregulated, carriers are simply falling falling over each other to provide consumers with better deals, isn't it the same in Canada?. This seems as though the two companies in question agreed before hand to up the costs together without the threat of genuine competition from each other.

Re:where is the competition?

[thedistrict]

Well, isn't Rogers the biggest carrier though? Seems like there is a fair amount of competition.

Re:where is the competition?

[kadot]

Rogers, with is dualbrand Fido.. is indeed the biggest carrier in Canada. They are not charging incoming sms.... and are not planning on to doing that either. Espacially with the Iphone that just came out wich keeps bringing them hundreds of new costumer daily, it is in their best interest to keep incoming Sms free.

Re:where is the competition?

[ceoyoyo]

There's a slight difference: in Ireland anybody can come along and set up a wireless network. You might even have a provision where existing network owners are required to sell time at a reasonable price to non-network owning providers. We have that arrangement with wired telecom.

Unfortunately, in Canada, if you want to cover more than just the major cities, you're looking at a huge investment in infrastructure.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[das3cr]

I don't know how I that was rated as a troll. SOMEONE should have shot that guy. And no matter who shot him it would have only been proper.

Goes to show ya, disagree -1 troll asshats on the loose.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Anonymous Coward]

If it had been the US, one of the other passengers would have shot him.

... and the resulting firefight killing 1 other innocent bystander, and injuring 6.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously doubt that.

Re:(shakes head)

[Clomer]

This is what I've done with my AT&T service (no, not the iPhone, but a more simple, basic phone). When I was billed $.20 for data usage because I had accidentally pushed the wrong button on my phone (I don't use the internet on my phone), I called up AT&T to find out what could be done about it so that stupid misclicks wouldn't be resulting in me being charged again. The CSR was very helpful and offered to disable data and SMS at the account level. Even incoming SMSs are blocked, so I never have to pay for them.

I recommend this for everyone, especially for SMS. I can see the potential usefulness for SMS, but I refuse to pay the astronomical rates for the service. So I've simply had it disabled. Unless and until it becomes a free service as part of a basic phone plan, I will not be using it.

So I can't speak for the other carriers, but AT&T was very simple and friendly about disabling those services. If you use AT&T, I recommend giving their customer service number a call.

To put the cost of texting in perspective...

[Rutefoot]

Here in Canada there is another option: Virgin Mobile. No connection fees, call waiting fees, etc. And certainly no fees for incoming text messages. But wait, doesn't Virgin Mobile rent space on Bell's network?

Oh yeah, that's right. Bell owns 50% of Virgin Mobile Canada and as part of the deal Virgin pays Bell the cost of using their system (plus a bit extra) and of course profits from being a 50% owner.

So what do they charge Virgin Mobile for each text message sent over their network?

About 1/10th of a penny.

So suffice to say, I don't buy it when Bell and Telus claim that the 15 cents is to cover the costs of receiving that text message.

Re:To put the cost of texting in perspective...

[ceoyoyo]

There's lots of others too. Fido (owned by Rogers) and Koodoo (owned by Telus) come to mind. Fido was acquired, but Koodoo, as far as I know, was set up by Telus specifically to trick people who hate Telus (everybody) into thinking they were getting an alternative.

Re:To put the cost of texting in perspective...

[Rutefoot]

I always thought it was Bell, but I guess you're right. That explains the massive amount of Koodo advertising I see everywhere.

Re:To put the cost of texting in perspective...

[ceoyoyo]

And the bright colours. Telus LOOOVES the colours.

I just switched from Rogers to Fido (well, about to when my iPhone arrives tomorrow). Rogers owns Fido but Fido seems to have managed to hold onto some integrity, at least as far as being polite and helpful to their customers goes. Plus Rogers wanted to charge me $450 for the phone instead of the advertised $299.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Bloke down the pub]

If it had been in England, the police would have shot some Brazilian guy who was nothing at all to do with it.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Bloke down the pub]

Google for "blue on blue". You bounders seem to hit more of our chaps in the gulf than the bally camel jockeys do.

Re:(shakes head)

[Anonymous Coward]

that's not true, at least on Telus.

I phoned customer support, told them I would like to block sms. They tried to upsell me on the 3$/month "unlimited incoming, 30 free outgoing!!!1!! bargain plan" I said no, they turned off sms.

the only studpid scummy downside is that there is no failure notice to senders. If you try and send me a text, it looks to you like it went through, but I never see it.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[pnewhook]

Yes, and a gunfight would have broken out, resulting in not only the one dead passenger by the killer (that would have happened regardless), but several other dead passengers caught in the crossfire of inexperienced gun wielding idiots.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[pnewhook]

If it had been in England, the police would have shot some Brazilian guy who was nothing at all to do with it.

And Bush would have said "Oh my God! A brazillion people were killed on a bus! How many is that anyway?

Re:(shakes head)

[Guysmiley777]

The phone is a mini-slave-driver, demanding your attention whenever the hell it rings.

Don't. Answer. It.

Where is it written that thou shalt always immediately answer thy cell phone, no matter what?

Double-dipping?

[halcyon1234]

We also feel that requiring us to buy text bundles to avoid the inconvenience of reversing spam charges constitutes extortion

How the hell is this even legal? Last I checked, a phone company can't charge for a service that blocks another service they are charging for. That's why Call Display is paid for, but Block-My-Number is free. If they're charging for text messages, they can't be allowed to charge for blocking them!

Re:Double-dipping?

[ceoyoyo]

Last time I looked the phone companies charged to block your number here. Then they introduced a (pay) service to reveal blocked numbers. I'm waiting for the (pay) block my number from the unblocker.

Re:Double-dipping?

[hawaiian717]

Buying a text message package isn't paying to block it, rather it's prepaying a certain number of messages. If you want to block it completely, contact your cell provider. I don't know about any of the Canadian companies, but I do know someone who was able to get text messaging disabled with Verizon Wireless in the US -- people can text him all he want, but he doesn't pay to receive the messages since they never get delivered to his phone.

Re:Double-dipping?

[dontmakemethink]

How the hell is this even legal? Last I checked, a phone company can't charge for a service that blocks another service they are charging for. That's why Call Display is paid for, but Block-My-Number is free. If they're charging for text messages, they can't be allowed to charge for blocking them!

This is not true. Here, you have to pay $1.50 per month to NOT have your number listed in the phone book, for example. They could offer spam services that advertisers pay for, then charge customers to not get the spam. They don't do it only because it would cost them more revenue from lost customers than it would gain, but it would be perfectly legal as long as it was specified in the user agreement in ultra-fine print.

Similarly, Google could offer ad-free Gmail for a monthly fee, even though they're the ones doing the advertising.

My phone in the US

[Puffy Director Pants]

Doesn't charge me for receiving SMS messages. Just sending. Which I never do, so it's not a problem for me. I use my phone to talk to people, not struggle to type in letters using the phonepad. I've got E-mail for that.

Can't believe this is happening again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does no one remember a similar debacle over fax machines in the early 80s?

Everyone started receiving spam ads on their faxes. The problem is that the recipient pays for the paper and toner. So big companies got together, lobbied congress, and made it illegal to send such spam faxes, because they were paying for them.

This seems no different: the recipients are being charged for something they didn't ask for. Problem here is there's no big organized corporate lobby, and the carriers actually benefit, so its not in their interest to stop. Imagine how fast this would end if they were company cell phones....

Re:Can't believe this is happening again...

[Diss Champ]

The solution is then obvious. Gather cell numbers of company-issued cellphones of corporations with effective lobbyists (particularly the persons decision-making capacities), lobbyists, congress-critters, and staffs of the same. Then everyone concerned with incoming SMS rules can SMS everyone on the list with your concerns on the lack of laws to prevent the situation, and remind them that once such a law is past, you won't be able to continue reminding them about the issue. Several messages may be necessary, since each individual message has such little information content.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Bloke down the pub]

However, it's unfortunate that we can't take full credit since he's a new immigrant and likely wasn't a citizen yet.

Maybe you read it somewhere else, but the linked article in the Groaniad doesn't say. It also doesn't mention what colour he is, so we can safely conclude he isn't white.

work around way

[kadot]

As a cell phone provider employee (none of the ones mention in this issue) I can assure you that this is.. legal... they are intittled to change their billing in any way there is. Now... im not for this.. and if my compagnie would be to do the same.. I would personnaly credit every single client that would call regarding that issue. How ever.. there is a way to stop this. Most compagnies have departments called Retention, these department deal with deactivation request and usually have deals to offer to clients that are not available for every customers. My advice would be just to call to deactivate, note that it is because of the SMS charges, they probably have already something to offer for you. Scince sms use to be free, it was impossible to block incoming sms.. my bet is that Bell and Telus probably have a way now of puttin a incoming sms block onto your phone. Its not fun.. but wont cost you money.......... besides that... try to bring down your early cancellation fee with the Retention department would probably be the other thing you can do if you would want to cancel your service.....

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Anonymous Coward]

HaHaHa. Troll.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[tha_mink]

Yes, and a gunfight would have broken out, resulting in not only the one dead passenger by the killer (that would have happened regardless), but several other dead passengers caught in the crossfire of inexperienced gun wielding idiots.

Right. And that would have been a MUCH better news story than just *one* lousy decapitation. That's why the US is the world media leader. More action, better suspense, and a deadlier final outcome.
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Re:Canada needs to Shape Up.

[AkaKaryuu]

Choosing to side with the lesser of two evils is not doing it right. Wireless services need a huge overhaul in North America.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[razorh]

I'm confused. This guy stabbed someone to death, how would someone shooting him cause a firefight? Was he using some new style knife that fires bullets, or was he stabbing the guy with a gun?

U.S. Cellular has FREE incoming messages

[Joe The Dragon]

U..S. Cellular has FREE incoming messages but as a cub fan I don't want to use them.

Re:(shakes head)

[The Dancing Panda]

It's 5 dollars a month, unlimited use. I can't stand it when people bitch and moan about it being "more expensive than Hubble", and quoting what amounts to an overage charge. Here's an experiment, go over your included minutes on your phone plan, and see how much they charge you. Hint: It's a shit ton.

All the bitching that goes on here about texts is ridiculous. It's 5 dollars, guys. Just pay the money and move on with your lives. You might actually like texting, it really is a good way to communicate with people you don't feel like talking to.

Re:(shakes head)

[Anonymous Coward]

At least with Telus, you *can* opt-out of text messaging (or so they've told me on the phone).

Re:Canada needs to Shape Up.

[aronschatz]

Just because you haven't had any spam message on your phone doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

I live in the US and I had to disable text messaging on my phone from Verizon because they would happily charge for spam messages. Plus, I'm not about to watch my phone every 3 seconds for a text message to arrive and then reply. My friends do that, it's like an addiction.

When someone calls, I either answer it, if I find it convenient enough, or they'll leave a proper voice mail. If they don't, it wasn't important.

Re:(shakes head)

[Skye16]

I -don't- answer it. But I will respond to texts - when I feel like it.

Listening to voice mail is just a pain in the ass, so I generally just let them stack up and then expire.

Good idea, except..

[anyGould]

You can't be charged for incoming text if text messaging is disabled on an account.

You can't avoid the charges if the phone company won't allow you to disable inbound texting.

My roommate is a Crackberry addict, but doesn't text (just not his thing). His phone bill is $150 a month. Telus will not disable texting on his phone (apparently they don't have the technical capability).

He's currently exploring options to get out of his contract entirely, but he had the bad luck of signing up just before this hit.

For people who are missing the point - this is me knocking on your door to sell you something and charging you $1 whether you answer the door or not.

Besides, didn't we cover this back in the "unsolicited fax" days?

Re:Good idea, except..

[__aamisb9940]

My BlackBerry is subscribed with Telus - I was adamant they disable SMS - and they did, straight away.

Re:Good idea, except..

[anyGould]

Good to know - I'll pass the word along.

Opting Out

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a prepaid service here in the US and I have always had the option of opting out of selected services.

I was getting charged for Wireless Web access at the rate of $.35 per day WHETHER OR NOT I USED IT. I called Customer Support and opted out. No more charge. ^_^

For the SMS services, I do text occasionally, but I never tie my cellphone to online sites that keep sending me messages. I've even quit using my cellphone for "Deal or No Deal", "Merv Griffin's Crosswords" and "Family Feud" questionnaires or "Win $XXX for the Correct Answer"-type stuff. Once my provider began charging me for incoming SMS texts, I even told my friends to contact me via Yahoo! Messenger.

No recurring fees for YM messages; no tiny keypad for entering texts; no more squinting to see what the crazy picture is, when my cellphone only allows me to display less than a megapixel.

If the provider will not allow you to Opt Out of services, then, by all means, call one of those TV Activists that are "On Your Side" or a Consumer Lawyer and have them look into these things. If it is illegal for these providers to add clauses like "by signing this form/contract, you are acknowledging that 'We' reserve the right to change our contract without prior notification, and to add or subtract services as 'We' deem necessary to provide proper service.", then be sure to make copies of your contracts AND submit these for investigation. No one wants to be scrutinized during this recession, but no one wants to pay more for less either.

Or Flat-Rate Plans

[maz2331]

I have a Cricket phone with a $50/mo plan that is completely unmetered for voice, web, and text. The only add-on is roaming out of the relatively limited service area, which I don't do very often at all.

Re:(shakes head)

[__aamisb9940]

Yes you can. Well, if you have Telus, you can. I called them and said "disable text", and they did. What's the problem?

Re:(shakes head)

[zippthorne]

text-mail is quicker to browse than voice-mail. No waiting for voice-prompts, and you can usually read faster than people can talk, anyway.

Unsolicited SMS? Really?

[daedae]

What I want to know is what all of these people are doing that gets them SMS spam. the only "unsolicited" messages I get on my phone are promos from Cingular/AT&T, and they don't charge us for those.

CTV is owned by BCE, same as Bell Mobility....

[Anonymous Coward]

is it any wonder there's no mention of WHICH law firm is filing these class actions in the article?

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[A nonymous Coward]

Yes, and a gunfight would have broken out, resulting in not only the one dead passenger by the killer (that would have happened regardless), but several other dead passengers caught in the crossfire of inexperienced gun wielding idiots.

You ought to look up some conceal carry stats and get some knowledge before shooting off your mouth (pun intended).

CCW permits require training and include a background check of some sort. You don't just start carrying and get away with it (except in, I believe, Vermont and Alaska, and they strangely don't have humongous crime problems). Then there's the interesting fact that off-duty cops have a worse criminal rate than CCW holders.

You need to stop reading the nanny state press (both right and left) and starting looking things up for yourself.

Re:(shakes head)

[Pinback]

You either need to insert some hand washing into your routine, or do that stuff in the reverse order.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[pnewhook]

Take some of your own advice coward.

Like you are far more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than to actually stop a crime with one. And the US has far more gun deaths per capita than anywhere else in the world (including areas where drug gangs rule like Columbia and Bolivia).

Re:(shakes head)

[Skye16]

1: Definite funny
2: Awesome band

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[A nonymous Coward]

You are wrong. There are 2+ million crimes yearly in the US prevented by use of a gun, most of those without firing it.

Most gun deaths in the US are criminals on criminals, and those people are criminals only because of the War On (Some) Drugs.

Doctors' bad handwriting alone is responsible for 7000+ deaths a year in the US. Medical mistakes in the US kill 200,000+ a year. Cars kill 40,000+, more than guns.

Where's your outrage about cars and doctors? Wheress your outrage about the War On (Some) Drugs?

Refusing to face facts is a good sign of cowardice. What exactly about guns scares you so much, so irrationally, when cars and doctors kill far more people, and when most gun deaths are criminals anyway?

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[pnewhook]

Bullshit - show me a credible reference to the prevention of crimes by guns number you state.

What the heck do doctors and cars have to do with anything? That's a different argument. There are a lot more things that kill people including cigarettes, pesticides, and falling pianos. They've got nothing to do with guns.

Guns don't scare me - gun wielding idiots that think they are the last line of defense against everything that scares them do though. The facts I stated are true which you seem to be afraid to face. You are the coward - it's even in your name.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[A nonymous Coward]

Guns don't scare me - gun wielding idiots that think they are the last line of defense against everything that scares them do though. The facts I stated are true which you seem to be afraid to face.

What facts? Did you state some facts? All you have stated is that you are afraid of gun-wielding idiots. Are you afraid of pen-wielding medical idiots? Are you afraid of the more general sort of medical idiots?

Or better yet -- are you not afraid of gun-wielding non-idiots? Are you afraid of gun-wielding off-duty cop idiots? How do you tell the gun-wielding off-duty cop idiots from the gun-wielding non-idiot CCW holders?

Face it, you are just plain scared for no reason, and not scared of what should scare you. You are far more likely to die from a medical idiot than a gun-wielding idiot.

You are the coward - it's even in your name.

Ahh, if you don't have any facts, resort to name calling. It all makes sense now.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[qeveren]

How about you show some statistics on the number of times CCW holders have escalated situations into becoming vastly more deadly, as you apparently assert they always inevitably do?

Re:(shakes head)

[Fjandr]

No, it's not unreasonable. I completely agree that incoming unsolicited, non-ignorable items should not be chargeable to the receiver.

I was simply pointing out that the post in question was a logical and straightforward method of dealing with a bad situation.

Re:(shakes head)

[rossz]

My stepdaughter went crazy on texting which resulted in it going over the 100 free messages. I told her I would let it slide "this time", but if she kept going over the limit she could lose her texting privileges. When she went over by several THOUSAND messages in a month, I canceled her ability to text. From the shrieks, you would have thought her life was over.

Re:(shakes head)

[InsaneProcessor]

That is called extortion. Why should I be forced to pay another $60 a year for something I do not want?

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[babyrat]

CCW permits in many states require training. Here in Arizona you have to attend a 4 hour class and be able to fire a gun and hit a target close enough that a blind person can hit it if you know which end of the gun is the one to point at what you want to kill.

Other states (Florida, IIRC) require a couple hour course and don't ever require you to fire a gun to get your concealed weapons permit.

Excuse me for not being overwhelmed with conficende.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[A nonymous Coward]

And CCW holders commit fewer crimes than off-duty cops. Does that tell you anything?

Re:(shakes head)

[faboo]

I don't know about Canada, but I'm a Verizon customer in the States, and for quite a while had text messaging entirely disabled (in both directions). These days I have media messaging disabled (my phone doesn't support it, and Verizon's web interface for receiving them is... deplorable) but do get plain text messages.

Small, technically irrelevant sample, but there it is ;)

Telus Cancelled Text Messaging

[failedlogic]

I rarely if ever use text messaging. But, on sheer principal, I canceled the text messaging service with Telus on my cell. I hope this is possible. The representative seemed shocked someone would do that. It sounded like there was some doubt it would be possible.

When I called, they offered to upgrade me to a higher package for an extra $3 a month. This is purely a cash grab. If 1/6 of their subscribers get higher text service it will be millions in the coffers.

What ticked me off more is that it took 10 minutes of talking on the phone to remove the service. Two minutes asking me why. Two minutes trying to sell me something. Six more tapping away at the computer. I hung up when the rep said it was done. They wanted to ask me more questions. They should put this stuff on-line. Telus only lets you *add* packages, not remove them on-line. I'm not going to renew when my plan's over.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[scarboni888]

Ok so how can posts *this* off-topic get positive mods?

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[scarboni888]

gee - there must be an error here - coulda swore this topic was about cell phone text messages??

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[rootooftheworld]

A nonymous Coward, will you marry me? *kneels and holds out a diamond ring*

Re:(shakes head)

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure who you're getting your services from but I have canceled SMS service entirely through Sprint and I know people that have done it with AT&T. I'm sure that they require the primary account holder to call to request a block of this service. You might need to ask your mom to do it.

Sorry for the pedantry

[Nick Ives]

He was actually killed on an underground train.

Re:Sorry for the pedantry

[Anonymous Coward]

But your parent was talking about Bush's reaction.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[pnewhook]

The fact that I stated was that you are far more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than to actually stop a crime with one. This is statistically provable. Look it up.

Typically it is the gun owners that are afraid. That's why they own guns because they mistakenly think that it will protect them. Either that or they are compensating for sexual deficiencies.

I'm not afraid - that's why I don't own a gun.

Re:(shakes head)

[The Dancing Panda]

No, extortion is "pay me, or I burn down your house". This is "pay me $5 a month or $0.10 a text message, or don't get text messages".

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[A nonymous Coward]

you are far more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than to actually stop a crime with one. This is statistically provable. Look it up.

I already have and I already quoted you the answer. 2M+ crimes are prevented with guns, and guns don't kill anywhere close to that, either by accident or on purpose. You are full of shit.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Anonymous Coward]

The accused immigrated from China four years ago.

http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&q=Weiguang+Li+&btnG=Search

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Anonymous Coward]

How in tarnation did Sir Ian Blair get modpoints?

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[pnewhook]

And I said prove that statistic - cite the source because I think that's bullshit. Instead of stating where you got that you resort to insults and name calling. Nice.

Get a grip and stop acting like you are twelve years old. Either that or shut up and stop posting nonsense.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[A nonymous Coward]

No no, it doesn't work that way. I looked up the stats and know you didn't. It would be pointless for me to post any link to real gun stats because you either already found them and didn't want to use them, or just made yours up and wouldn't believe real stats. Your mind is already made up.

Besides, you posted your fake facts before I posted my real stats. You post your link to your fake stats, then I will post my link to the real stats.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[pnewhook]

Wow you are childish. Just read your post.

Your stats are bullshit. They are false and you are a liar.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[A nonymous Coward]

Wasn't it you who accused me of not proving stats and calling you names?

Looks like you are all hot air and no substance. Smoking people out is fun. I've got lots of experience at it.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[pnewhook]

You're clearly an argument troll who makes up bullshit just to rile people up.

Stop bothering me asshole. Fuck, you're a loser.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[A nonymous Coward]

You're clearly an argument troll who makes up bullshit just to rile people up.

Stop bothering me asshole. Fuck, you're a loser.

You're clearly an argument troll who makes up stuff just to rile people up.
Stop bothering me fool. Man, you're losing.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Bloke down the pub]

I was right! Eat shit, mods!

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Abcd1234]

The guy was already dead by the time people realized what was happening. So you're saying it's "proper" to hand out vigilante justice?

Thanks, but no thanks.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[das3cr]

Actually I'm saying that if you have the means to stop a knife wielding asshat who's eating his latest victim you have a DUTY to put a stop to it to safeguard yourself and the rest of the people involved.

To sit there and DO NOTHING because your worried about being labeled a vigilantly? Thanks, but no thanks.

~"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less "

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Abcd1234]

to safeguard yourself and the rest of the people involved.

Umm... they did safeguard themselves and everyone else. No one else was hurt.

So, what was your point, again?

To sit there and DO NOTHING

Who said they did nothing? They stopped the bus, everyone exited safely, and then they locked the guy in. When law enforcement showed up, they dealt with him. Sounds like a perfectly sound, reasonable response.

Well, unless you're an idiotic, blood-thirsty cowboy...

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[das3cr]

Oh, you mean that because THIS asshat stopped at eating just one person it's fine.

If someone on board had the means to stop the guy then they would have had a duty to do so.

Unless of course your one of those ass hats who likes to sit and watch people get killed...

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[Abcd1234]

Just FYI, this:

If someone on board had the means to stop the guy then they would have had a duty to do so.

Has a very different meaning from this:

If it had been the US, one of the other passengers would have shot him.

As would have only been proper!

The former is an act of self defense. The latter is vigilantism (particularly given your belief that shooting him would've been "proper"). Now, if someone onboard felt the need to defend themselves (in this case, they didn't, as everyone was able to safely exit the bus before he was, umm, "done" with his first victim), then they should feel the freedom to do so.

What they shouldn't have done is killed him because they thought he deserved it.

Now, I'm not sure where, exactly, your position is, but we can agree if it stops at self-defense. Anything above that, it's vigilantism, and doesn't belong in a modern, civilized society.

Re:eat my shorts slashdot !!

[das3cr]

Shooting him self defense would have been proper. No vigilantism need be involved. Not to mention that shooting someone in self defense usually means the person deserved it AND it's the proper thing to do.