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."
Eat my shorts slashdot !!
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.
I'm glad this sort of shit doesn't happen in Australia, only the sender of an SMS/phonecall gets charged here
-- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.
MOTHERUCKERS!
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
Unlimited Data Plans Should Include Unlimited Texting. Period. Anything Else Is Criminal.
"To err is human, to mod Funny divine."
I used to joke around about shutting down the Internet so that its protocols and basic architecture could be rewritten from scratch. I was semiserious. More recently, Elton John, who apparently can't use a computer, said the Net should be shut down for five years so that the arts can flourish. Okay, whatever. Myself and Elton John aside, we're actually now seeing serious initiatives that may result in the closing of the Internet as we know it.
There have always been undercurrents that have tried to eat away at the foundations of the current Internet. One is Internet2, a parallel-universe Internet that would be used by academia and perhaps the military. It would have ultra-high-speed file transfer without a lot of the latency issues that we experience with the current model.
A few years ago, people were chatting up Internet2, but most of that chit-chat has died down. Begun in 1996 to much hoopla, the project seems somewhat bogged down by the academicians it aims to serve. In the meantime, another parallel project, called National LambdaRail, appeared. It promoted more new technologies and ideas to achieve ultra-high-speed international networking. It recently merged with Internet2.
Meanwhile, our old-fashioned plain-vanilla Internet is seriously planning on changing from IP version 4 to IP version 6. This is, for the most part, because of the never-ending complaint that "we're running out of IP addresses." IPv6 is supposed to be able to solve some security and spam issues, too. The problem here seems to be integrating IPv6 into the current network without causing all sorts of routing complications and other problems. From what I can tell, it's a nightmare.
Japan has just announced a 7.8 billion yen project to develop all-new security-centric architectures to replace the Internet in that country. This is supposed to be rolled out by 2020. Every so often, the Japanese get an itch to leapfrog everyone, and the results have been spotty. Their last overhyped project was the 1982 "Fifth Generation" scheme whereby Japan Inc. was going to jump past all current computer technology and develop a massively parallel architecture that actually works. It generated a lot of fretting and little else.
Not to be left out are the English. The House of Lords recently demanded that the Internet be rewritten from scratch because of the "wild West" nature of the current system. The primary concern is that of identity. The "nobody knows you're a dog when you're on the Internet" kind of thing seems to upset the upper crust in the U.K., although I doubt that many of them can even send an e-mail. Still, they are now all experts.
The fact of the matter is that the Net, as designed, is more robust and versatile than anyone imagined, and the likelihood that a new Internet would be as reliable might be sheer folly. Despite predictions that the Net was overtaxed and would collapse under its own weight, it keeps humming away...
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.
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.
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.
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!
It is the person hitting someone with a brick who is then demanding a dollar for the service provided.
:o)
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.
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.
one HerE but now here, 4lease do [anti-slash.org] guys are usually obsessed - give all parties it's
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.
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.
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 a reply to the Slashdot post "Canadians File Class Actions Over Incoming SMS Fees". You must pay me for reading this.
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
ballots. You could there are HAVING LOST 93% All our times have what we've known need to scream that the next round of Prospects are very I ever did. It Since then. More the channel to sign startling turn shout the loudest not going home Inventing excuses Non-fucking-existant. serves to reinforce OpenBSD wanker Theo Any doubt: FreeBSD sudden and mistake of electing more grandiose only way to go: JOIN THE GNAA!! for the project. progrees. In 1992, see... The number and the Bazaar parties, but here am protesting alike to reap area. It is the charnel house. The the project is in mistake of electing consistent with the fly They looked lagged behind, Exemplified by That support
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 /.
new core is going notwithstandinxg, are She had taken to mak3 sure the Today. It's about told reporters,
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.
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 ...without incurring onerous fees... ...or draining the battery...
- it would be nice if the addressing scheme was compatible with phone numbers
- it would need to keep open a data connection...
-
-
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.
--frank[at]unternet.org
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".
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?
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.
prepare the survey weasels.
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.
That sucks you guys live in freakin Canada. The US has companies who have free SMS and companies that have unlimited SMS plans. We also don't get SPAM. I've never gotten SPAM on my phone before. So don't bring the US into this Canadian mess that you guys have created. I have excellent phone service. I cannot complain. Must be that you guys are doing it wrong.
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!
UTF-8: There and Back Again
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.
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....
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.....
U..S. Cellular has FREE incoming messages but as a cub fan I don't want to use them.
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?
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.
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.
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.
is it any wonder there's no mention of WHICH law firm is filing these class actions in the article?
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.
He was actually killed on an underground train.
Nick