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."
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.
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."
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
-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?
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
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!
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?
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
If it had been the US, one of the other passengers would have shot him.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
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.
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?
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
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
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....
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!
You'll have that sometimes...
Yes you can. Well, if you have Telus, you can. I called them and said "disable text", and they did. What's the problem?
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
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?
Infuriate left and right
gee - there must be an error here - coulda swore this topic was about cell phone text messages??