TELUS Forcing Customers Off Unlimited Plans

An anonymous reader writes "Canadian telco TELUS sold a bunch of (expensive) Unlimited EV-DO aircard accounts last winter and are now summarily canceling them or forcing people to switch to much less valuable plans. TELUS is citing 'Violations,' but their Terms Of Service (see #5) are utterly vague and self-contradictory. The TELUS plans were marketed as being unlimited, without the soft/hard caps that the other providers had at the time. They were purchased by a lot of rural Canadians who had no other choice except dialup. Now TELUS is forcing everyone to switch from a $75 Unlimited plan to a $65 1GB plan, and canceling those who won't switch. Have a look at the thread at Howardforums, a discussion of the TELUS ToS (in red at the bottom), an EV-DO blogger who's been a victim, a post at Electronista, and of course Verizon getting fined for doing the same thing! Michael Geist has taken an interest as well."

Comments

It's the "we change anything in this contract"

[iamhigh]

You agree that, to maintain or improve the service, or for other business reasons, TELUS can in its sole discretion, suspend, restrict, modify or terminate all or any part of the service or make changes to the network and other facilities without notice to you.

And that is why "agreements" like this are worthless. They should just say "Here's what you are required to do... we can do as we damn well please." But honestly, is there any point in signing a contract when one party retains all rights to completely change the contract without allowing you the ability to opt-out of the contract? Is this even legal? Probably... can we change it?

I am not real big on "consumer protections" but this type of stuff just seems ridiculous. At some point we have to realize that cell phones and internet access are pretty much not a privilege any more. All of us should have access to these shared resources (the tubes).

Re:It's the "we change anything in this contract"

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Reasonable people can disagree over whether or not basic needs like health care are rights, but Internet access?!! That's nuts.

Not really. If the society moves to the stage where all essential services, government included, are on the Internet and inaccessible in a timely manner otherwise, Internet, like roads, become a necessity for living, only slightly less important then shelter or medical care. Telephones, for example, have long since crossed that line. In North America some means of long-range transportation (read: a car or some alternative) are pretty much a must in many cities if one wishes to obtain any employment at all, and thus sustenance and shelter.

Should these things be free/subsidized? That is an argument between Communism, Socialism, Capitalism and other socio-economic systems and far outside the scope of this disucssion. But irrespective of your take, it is pretty obvious that telecommunications/transportation are not in the same category as tourism or bar-hopping and are far closer to shelter/medical care, and getting closer every day.

Re:What???

[davester666]

This is slightly different. This is company has a contract with the customer, and is using it's "we reserve the right to change any term and any time and/or cancel the contract for any reason without penalty" option to extract themselves from a contract they no longer wish to honor.

The customers now have the option to sign a new contract to pay more money for less service or switch to another provide [Rogers, yaay].

I'm sure Roger's wants to this this for their 'special' data pricing plans 6 Gb per month/some amount of money, but they probably don't want a whole bunch of unlocked iPhones on shorter-term contracts ready to switch when the competition get their GSM network setup in the next 1 or 2.

Re:What???

[pentalive]

Isn't it wonderful - If we want to break the contract it's a hundred to two hundred dollars, but If the phone company breaks the contract it's no big deal...