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.
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.
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!
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.
even more amusingly, you can simply sign up someone you don't like via a website simply by knowing their phone number. good times.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
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?
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!
> don't like
What's to stop you signing up people you like, or even have no real opinion on?
Max.
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.
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
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.
Remind me not to get on your good or indifferent side....
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
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, 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