I’m sure M. Davies had a good laugh, before putting it up on “The Board” to share that laugh with the rest of the Executive Office. (Been there, done that.) : (

This is an illustration of the biggest point I’ve been pressing home about Bell (and TO Bell) shortly after the very launch of Sympatico.

It drives me crazy how this behemoth gets away with Breach of Contract as a standard practice, and how very few people have even considered challenging them over this. Indeed, it’s the absence of any real challenge to these contract changes that lets them continue to enjoy the feel of their collective dick planted firmly up the collective ass of so many Canadians.

I was one of the early Sympatico subscribers, and still have that account.
In the beginning, there were no “caps”, and all activity was “unlimited”.
That was in the contract…. No!… IS in the contract.

If I were to go online right now, and read the “current” Terms of Service, I’m sure it would say different – in that, there would probably be a download limit statement of some sort (and my guess would be it wouldn’t be clearly defined in actual numbers) and a clause meant to disqualify the “unlimited” nature of the account.

But, none of this affects me (anymore).
My use is uncapped and unlimited.
Why?…
Because I didn’t take their shit, and challenged them.

Whenever they tried to sneak in any illegal changes, I was there to say, “No, you don’t!”, and held them to their contract. Naturally, they tried the standard “if you continue to use the account with the new TOS, you have already agreed…” crap. I would simply tell them that by contacting them, I have formally objected. I also let them know I’m perfectly aware of the law, and that simply “posting” the changes and letting the system send you an e-mail (after the changes have been posted) does not constitute “informed consent”. The law states a contract IS a contract, and the only way to have key features of that conscription changed is to properly PROPOSE the changes to the client, and have that client actually agree to them. Indeed, if I were to choose to not read the new TOS (which is often the case – how many times have things been changed without any announcement anyway?!), I would still only be bound by the original contract.

To make a long story much shorter…
Yes! I had to spend (waste) a great deal of my time contacting them, and yes!, half of that time was spent with the “Executive Office” (what a crock!). And yes! they tried shutting me down and cancelling my contract. But, in the end, they ended up giving me about a year’s worth of free service, and leaving all my original account features untouched. And, they never bother me now.

I should mention, they also tried something on me that I know they’ve done to thousands…
More than once, they offered to “update” my account to one with “richer features”. Since my account couldn’t be richer (top speeds, unlimited, no caps), that offer was obviously just another attempt to get me to ACCEPT a DIFFERENT contract. One you do that, you surrender your right to uphold the original terms, as you’ve effectively re-signed a new one under “present day” terms. In other words, the “update” is not an update at all – you would be starting a NEW account, and for MORE MONEY!

That must be how Bell managed to get away with a great deal of contract changes. Many people must have stopped thinking long enough to accept that offer to “update”, and, consequently, have forfeited their original contracts… the one thing you can use to stick it to them now, should you still have it.

Bottom line…
1) Know where you stand legally.
Educate yourself to what you have agreed to and/or have given up along the way.
Take those points that you still have in your favour and run with them.

2) Be consistent and firm in your message.
Don’t accept any crap you KNOW is crap. Refuse to accept new terms implemented without your direct involvement. And, don’t let them BEAT YOU by resorting to abusive behaviour or letting them confuse the issue!! (They will deliberately frustrate you in order to provoke you into giving them a legal reason to shut you down, and instruct their front-line workers to do the same! Why do you think a company that has been around that long would “not have a clue” about anything you need to discuss??! It’s by design.)

3) Stick to the facts and document your dealings.
Only press home what has proof, from data on your bills, your visa/bank account, application logs, etc., depending on the issue. And always keep record of everything you do with them – dates, times, names (when you get them, otherwise get the Employee Numbers!), what was done, etc. And, make sure all the “Notes” they say they’re appending to your account records are actually getting put in there. (Don’t know how many times they’ve tried to get out of something by simply “failing” to enter something important I should have been able to let someone else refer to.)

4) Should a viable competing ISP actually become available… DUMP BELL!

I’m still waiting to execute #4.
: )

It has recently come to my attention that you are now charging me for incoming text messages as well as out going. I have been told that this is now your “new policy”. There are several reasons why I am very disappointed in the mistake you have made implementing this policy and why I won’t be paying for incoming text messages;
1.The person who sent the message has already paid for it. If you charge the person receiving it, you are charging twice for one message. That is obviously unfair.
2.I don’t have any control over people sending me messages. I even occasionally receive spam messages. Why should I be paying for that??
3.We already have a deal. For you to make such a drastic change to our already existing contract is inexcusable.

I have already talked to your exceedingly unhelpful staff on the phone and have received excuses like;
1.We can change the contract to suite our needs whenever we feel like it. My answer to that is; If we all changed contracts to suite our needs whenever we felt like it, imagine the chaos it would cause. You are expected to uphold your end of the deal. I’ve been paying my bill, so I’ve done my part. It’s up to you to do yours.
2.We are doing the same thing to everyone. My answer to that is; Just because you decided to screw over everyone, doesn’t make it OK.
3.We notified everyone earlier. My answer to that is; If you don’t give people any choice, then notifying them is irrelevant.
4.We are happy to make you pay more for a plan where you receive unlimited text messages. My whole point is, I shouldn’t have to pay more for incoming text messages. I’m more than happy to pay for any message I send, but the ones I receive have already been paid for by the person who sent it.

Please don’t send me some generic form letter with more excuses. As I’ve mentioned, I won’t be paying for incoming text messages due to how unfair this new policy of yours is. I am taking the time to write you as an effort to solve this problem and I hope you will return the favor by removing these unnecessary fees from my account and no longer charging me for them. I’ve been a good customer for a couple of years now and never agreed to have this added to my bill. You forced it upon me.

I’m not trying to be rude, but I believe in getting to the point. Any reasonable person can see that my points are very valid and I’m looking forward to hearing back from you to fix your mistake.

Sarah

Ever heard of something called Telesat Canada? Owned by BCE! Who sells the same signal to Bell TV and Star Choice…uh–go ahead, you were saying something about doing some research and not being so ignorant!

Also, I don’t want High-Speed Internet via cable and that’s irrelevant to the article, which states that all DSL telephone signals, whether they be from Sympatico (Bell) or any other 3rd party ISP vendor, all of them use Bell Canada’s telephone lines, thus BCE maintains a monopoly regarding carrying DSL signals.

Finally, Rogers Cable like Bell throttles its users! As well, both offer so-called unlimited high-speed Internet accounts but both have monthly caps of total usage, around 100 Gig (and that’s the total of upload & download combined)! I use a 3rd party DSL high-speed ISP, I have a true unlimited account in that there are no monthly caps on usage! But because I have a contract with a 3rd party for my high-speed Internet, Bell shouldn’t have the legal right to interfere with my data that runs across its fiber optic network because it’s my ISP that leases the use of Bell’s fiber network not me! If Bell in its lease agreement, can instruct 3rd party ISP’s to reduce Internet traffic then it’s up to my ISP to throttle any and/or all of its own customers. But what Bell is doing is throttling all data from all Internet users even if they’re not with Sympatico! This illegal act epitomizes the power of a monopoly! I’m not paying Bell Canada for my access to use its fiber optic network, I don’t have a contract with Sympatico for high-speed DSL service, yet Bell is jumping over my ISP like it doesn’t exist and is throttling my speed as though I have financial contract with them! I don’t, I’m with a different company, it’s irrelevant that I’m using Bell’s fiber optic network, if Bell can’t cope with the amount of Internet traffic then they need to lay down more fiber optic cable! Reducing all Canadians’ speeds via throttling even if they don’t use Sympatico is illegal because any Canadians like me have a written contract for our use with our ISP’s–not with Sympatico! If Bell can’t handle the volume of data then it should either not lease its telephone lines or increase its capacity but what they’re doing is a stopgap measure–throttle everyone–that’s not a long term solution! It’s reasons like this that the mega company BCE needs to be forcibly broken up and allow competition in the marketplace for the common good of the Canadian economy!

Whenever there is no viable alternate choice, there is a monopoly.
For many of us (including me), Rogers may be there as the only other choice, but yet no really.
I can’t use them, as the cable in my area is not being maintained. (I use Rogers for TV, but I need a helluva booster to bring it in!) Rogers won’t fix it, saying it’s the responsibility of homeowners and apartment landlords to foot the bill.

All other “alternate providers”, for me and many, are the ones using the Bell last mile, which is, as I’m sure you know, THROTTLED. Ironically, by using Bell, I have a chance to cheat the throttle (and I do this quite successfully). CAIP services don’t have that capability, thanks to being attached AFTER the throttling point.

Bell was basically “built by the People” and enjoyed being a telecom monopoly for years.
They were “deregulated” with the stipulation that part of the infrastructure would be opened up to allow services to be offered by future competition. Though this arrangement was never formally challenged and absolved, Bell has successfully gotten away with sabotaging the services of any competition, along with sabotaging its own Sympatico users, while continuing to collect prime rates from those Sympatico users.

Bell is not only guilty of anti-competitiveness, but guilty of successfully…
1) breaching sympatico contracts
2) breaching privacy law
3) breaching “common carrier” rules
4) inadequate customer recourse for everything
5) perpetuating outright lies to the public
6) failing to maintain its solvency through it all.

About #6:
Now that Bell has managed to throw its money (and some of ours) away, and place itself in the position it has, and, subsequently, helping to put Canada behind the 8-ball Internetwise, we have the choice of accepting that, and watching the behemoth fall (taking a good chunk of our communications infrastructure with it), or challenging their very existence NOW, and doing the right thing – taking them apart and forcing each piece to become accountable, functional, and (most importantly) SEPARATE and WITHOUT CONFLICT.

Before your shoot off your mouth, why don’t you research the Ontario Condominium Act first! 10% is a joke and is an impossible figure, I don’t have my copy of the act with me but why don’t you do some research before posting!

To last Reader’s opinion, RE quote:bottom line is that they are not a monopoly and if you don’t like their services then choose an alternative provider: unquote.

BCE is a monopoly! I have chosen an alternative DSL high-speed 3rd party ISP but the problem is all the telephone signals are called on Bell Canada’s telephone lines! It doesn’t matter which ISP company I chose, all of them are being throttled by Bell Canada because Bell’s fiber optic capacity can’t handle the volume! Obviously your ignorant opinion comes from outside Canada! Again, just like I told Free, why don’t you do some research before posting!

Also you should know that BCE has a monopoly on satellite TV, you can’t legally get satellite TV in Canada through any other signal, they’re the exclusive satellite owner to the country…uh I believe that constitutes a monopoly! Do your homework American!

BCE does not own VSNL – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSNL_International_Canada
BCE does not own Emerges – http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/11/29/emergis.html
BCE owns a minority stake (20%) of CTVGlobeMedia – http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060721/bellglobe060721?s_name=&no_ads=

BCE is a publicly traded company.. you can look at the financials on a number of sites.
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=TSE:BCE

the following excerpt is from
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2008/06/c7533.html
showing that BCE does indeed spend money on their network

“Bell invested $765 million of capital this quarter and $2,420 million in
2007 with a continued focus on improving the customer experience and expanding
the range of services available to customers through expenditures in areas
such as Bell’s high-speed Evolution, Data Optimized (EVDO) wireless network
and Fibre-to-the-node (FTTN). At year end, Bell’s high-speed EVDO Rev A
network covered approximately 75% of the Canadian population and Bell had
deployed 4,828 neighbourhood nodes through its FTTN program.”

For the R&D comment take a look at the list for 2007
(hint see #2) – http://seekingalpha.com/article/106018-nortel-is-still-canada-s-r-d-champion

KPMG stated that the company currently passes all their solvency tests but that post sale would not after adding on 30+Billion dollars of debt.

i dont like the throttling thats being done but apparently the crtc doesnt mind it so much –
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2045960320081120

bottom line is that they are not a monopoly and if you dont like their services then choose an alternative provider.

55% ? WOW!
Try 10% to be affective, otherwise you’re getting ripped off
in many condos ppl are taking pics and video of each incident just to keep them weasels honest

That’s the entire point of a petition with a short survey, to show cause in a court of law so that the judge can appoint a forensic audit!!!

petitions and Canadians just don’t get along, it’s like pulling teeth with rubber band. Just look at how many signed petitions and showed up at parliament hill for Net Neutrality protest. Good effort but not good enough … there should have been 1,000’s of people

so the only thing “that works” is individuals taking Bell to court since these people are the only ones with gutts enough to protest properly and stand up to Bell.

If you’re going to start something then you need to make sure Canadians will get off their asses and actually do something.
This means a plan on many fronts: ongoing protests, ongoing petitions, ongoing bills for lost services and time, court cases in common courts, continuous complains to MP’s and all parts of government, protests on Bell’s doorstep, let it be known this movement is only going to grow and definitely not going to go away!

Petitions: will need be done door to door and in public places to every present and past Bell user, with opening statement of “If you have ever been and bell subscriber we need you and your opinion.”
These people will have to sport T-shirts or something to tell everyone they are taking a petition much different than some bogus market survey
Copies of petitions to be sent to Bell, MP’s, posted on net, sent to all media [TV, newspapers, mags, rags, etc.]

Protests: take it to their doors all over the country on continuous basis with clear signs of what Bell has done wrong. Have clear big signs on your lawns or properties or buildings
Do concerts in name of protests, create appropriate songs etc.
Video everything and post it, it’s your protection against attacks and proof if you need it, pics good too.

Create alternate internet via Independent ISP’s, Wifi, Wimax or intranets
Open part of your Bell Wifi connections to others as much as possible
Overload their [Bell's] network as much as possible without being an idiot.

Most important: Bill them for your lost time, internet problems, their lies, loss of work, overcharging, difference between unlimited access and throttling, loss of enjoyment and anything related.
If they [Bell] don’t pay take them to small claims court

Unless you do this properly as stated here and maybe more you will be SOL, and so will all of Canada … your choice

Enjoy

There are laws and rules that are supposed to be complied with…
1) in the operation of a business
2) in the value and support you give your customers
3) in remaining solvent
4) in practicing fair competition
5) in being a “common carrier”
6) in respecting privacy and demonstating openness in your actions
7) in investing profits back into the business, in order to keep up with consumer demand and technological progress.
(I’ll stop here.)

BCE has been blatantly breaking every one of these, and has even thumbed its collective nose at our very Constitution in some of its actions. BCE should be dismantled. Doing so would likely be good for this country, and a responsible move.

BCE should never have been permitted to grow into the behemoth it now is, according to our own rules, but they have. For example, “common carriers”, by legal definition, should not be permitted to offer “content”, but the Canadian Government felt it was okay for this carrier to do so by opening up a “separate company” under the same Bell umbrella.

Donald’s compiled a perfectly sound legal argument.
One which, I’ve also played out in my mind.
All it’s looking for, is for others to ask themselves:
1) Do you agree?
2) Do you want to do anything about it?
3) What are you willing to do?

And I know Donald and I are certainly not alone in this thinking.

Unless BCE is broken up, they’re going to slowly be responsible for the disintegration of the Canadian economy because 21st century trade will be based on sales and communication that are done through the Internet!

gist is, if you hate Bell Canada, sign the petition, period.

this isn’t Reuters, /rolls eyes.

The second thing is that BCE deal is largely DEAD, if gone thorugh would have added to BCE’s current debt YES debt to the tune of about 30 billion.
YEA we need the liberal/ndp coaltion to straighten them out.
They should be told:
A) make amends to the people whom you breached contracts with and settle all class action lawsuits.
B) if you survive that upgrade upgrade capacity then when you can give them all 5 megabit unlimited come back we’ll see what you need.
C) other wise die off and go away. No to helping BELL with any money, THEY STILL OWE MY DAD 209$ they ripped off.

If you did, you’d realize that for one, the market isn’t worth what it was a year ago. It’s lost probably about 30% of it’s overall value in the last 12 months. This means that most companies publicly traded, as well the economies around the world, are worth that much less as well.

Second, BCE isn’t strapped for cash or loaded with debt. Read the financial reports and you’ll see that they have a healthy cash flow. But like every other company around the world right now, they can’t afford to spend spend spend without some sort of short term gain. BCE is probably one of the few Canada wide companies that won’t require any form of stimulus or “bailout” from the Government and taxpayers.

Third, shame on p2pnet for publishing this crap in the first place without taking the time to investigate whether what is being posted makes factual sense.