Slashdot Mirror
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."
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...
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.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
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?
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.
this is why self-regulation does not work!!
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
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.
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!
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.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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?
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.
-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?
If it had been the US, one of the other passengers would have shot him.
As would have only been proper!
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
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.
Infuriate left and right