New Bell Canada ’screw-the-customer’ plan
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- A while back I lit into Ares for running p2pnet stories – all of them, and every day – in full under its own copyright, and without any kind of reference to p2net.
That’s plagiarism and I was angry.
I wasn’t looking for money, but credit where credit is due. That’s why p2pnet is published under a Creative Commons license and as far as I know, Ares is still using p2pnet stories, but it’s now doing so with proper attribution.
That’s one thing. But what about when you pick up a story from another site? I mention this because the CBC is running an item on the fact Bell Canada is trying to stick it to users. Again.
“If you want to break up with your home phone company, you should be forced to call and give it a chance to win you back, Bell Canada argues,” says the CBC. “Currently, when customers leave one local phone and long-distance service provider for another, the new phone company calls the customer’s old provider to deliver the bad news and complete the cancellation.”
“http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/02/20/bell-customers.html – says an email from Marc. “Of course you got no kudos. Damn media.”
Of course not. Happens all the time. But if anyone deserved kudos, it was p2pnet’s Ottawa Gal who broke the story in the first place.
She also spotted the Bell Sympatico bandwidth scandal and although it ultimately became a national story involving the CRTC and parliament, nary a word from the lamescream mainstream media about where it came from.
dslreports reports
How did the CBC cotton on to the story? Perhaps from p2pnet, but more probably, a CBC reporter noticed the fuss raised by dslreports readers who, triggered by a comment from edendolf which linked back to the original p2pnet story, expressed their outrage loudly, clearly and at length.
Said dslreport’s Karl Bode in a front page post »»»
Courts here in the States recently ruled against Verizon, saying that the telco couldn’t use number portability requests from competing carriers to try and win those departing customers back. In Canada, Bell Canada is asking Canadian regulators a number of rather large favors, including provisions that prevent a subscriber from leaving if there’s unsettled balances (even if they’re the result of Bell Canada’s own errors) as well as new rules preventing other carriers from canceling your service for you via number portability requests:
The Companies are seeking a declaration from the Commission that no TSP is bound by Commission rules to accept the authority of another TSP to act on the end-users’ behalf in order to cancel local and long-distance services with their existing TSP during the customer transfer process and to direct that CISC make the appropriate changes to the MALI, CLOG, LEC-IXC agreement and PIC/Care handbook to reflect this change.To most people, even this country’s FCC, that’s anti-competitive (see our forum discussion), but given the CRTC’s bell-friendly positions of late, Canadian regulators may just see this as perfectly fair. Maybe if carriers provided better service at a lower price in the first place, they wouldn’t have to worry about changing the rules to retain customers?
And that’s fair enough.
The message is what’s important
Below is a p2pnet post from 2005. It’s headed up Credit where credit is due, and it goes »»»
Every now and I get an email along these lines:
You publish articles in full from people or sites that are nothing to do with p2pnet. Or you take clips from stories on other sites. That`s not fair and you`ll eventually get nailed for copyright infringement or something.
I now have a standard reply, and it says:
p2pnet never re-publishes anything in full unless the author has specifically contacted us to tell us about the article in the first place, unless we`ve asked for, and received, permission to re-publish, or unless the item is covered by a Creative Commons license (and even then 9.9 times out of 10, we still ask for permission).
On quoting from another story, we take pains to refer to the source throughout our piece, we always include a link to the original in the body of the story, and another link with the original headline at the bottom.
Is it fair to use a story developed by another publication? Sure. It`s standard practice. On- and offline publications check other news outlets for interesting items and then do their own versions or follow-ups, or they come up with something completely different.
As far as p2pnet is concerned, it`s published under a Creative Commons license and I encourage people to use our material in any that way suits them, although it`s nice if they link back to the original and give credit where credit is due.
Sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn`t. But either way, I don`t lose sleep over it. I`m not jealous of content. In fact, I WANT it to get out there. I want the story to be picked up and circulated. That`s why p2pnet exists. Nor do I care if I`m first or dead last. Scoops don`t matter online. The message is what`s important.
And sometimes, material I developed shows up on Google as a lightly remixed and unattributed version in another publication. But again, although it wrankles, no serious worries for the reasons stated above.
`Simply copying others` content`
Last week, we mentioned how Google News was prominently displaying articles from another site that was simply copying Techdirt`s content (with attribution in a tiny font), writes Mike in Techdirt, going on:
While this is exactly the kind of thing that others have threatened to sue over, I don`t think it`s that big of a deal (though, it would be nice if the attribution was a bit clearer). If anything, it shows that someone has found our content valuable enough to re-publish.
The problem, Techdirt continues, was Google News, seemed to be displaying this content with a link to that site instead of ours, even it was originally from Techdirt, and our version isn`t smothered with ads as this other site is.
In my message to the Google News team I said I had no problem with what this other site was doing, but thought it would be more appropriate to show the Techdirt page, says Mike.
It seems only fair that if they must show this other site, they should at least show our site as well, since that`s where the content is from. Google has now responded, saying they `are unable to manually alter the position or ranking of individual stories found in Google News,` but telling me that I should file a DMCA complaint against this other site – at which point Google will take action and (supposedly) remove their site from the index. That`s a pretty extreme response. I don`t want their site to be taken out of Google`s index. I simply think that Google News should be able to recognize that our content belongs in the same results, since it`s content we created in the first place.
Shouldn`t there be some sort of middle ground, where Google notices a site is simply copying others` content and works to make sure the original source is linked, either instead of, or alongside, the copycats?
That`d be nice, Mike. But it`ll never happen.
‘Screwed, double screwed, then triple screwed’
And so it goes.
Meanwhile, what about the Bell story?
Says the CBC »»»
Bell said its proposed system would be good for customers because:
- It would allow the old provider to offer incentives to try and win the customer back.
- It would ensure that customers know about cancellation charges they will have to pay and other consequences if they switch providers.
If customers are fully informed by both companies, they could negotiate further for better terms, enhancing competition, the application said.
According to the CRTC, other parties may respond to the application in the 30 days after it was filed, and the applicants will have another 10 days to issue a counter-response. The CRTC is expected to make a decision within 10 months.
But on dslreports, “Screwed, double screwed, then triple screwed,” says spin it baby.
“I’ll let all my friends and family know to switch from bell before it gets stupidly difficult thanks to this,” says HoboJ.
This is a lot like the corporate music industry’s sue ‘em all marketing campaign under which Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music, Sony BMG and their RIAA blithely treating their customers like shit, suffering under the delusion they can get away with it.
But in the 21st the digital century where ‘consumers’ had been transformed back into customers with free choice and the means to make their feelings felt, they can’t, and they won’t.
The same applies to that ding dong, Bell.
Because credit where credit is due covers a huge range of sins.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
CBC – Departing phone customers should be forced to make goodbye call: Bell, February 20, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:34 am
“Bell said its proposed system would be good for customers…”
Funny how the one doing the screwing is always the only one saying “you’re gonna want a cigarette when this is done”!
February 21st, 2009 at 11:54 am
Good for who when the threats of termination fee’s comes out of Bell
and the threats of how bad the competition are comes out of Bell.
Good only for the big telco hanging on to their customers with threats and scare tactics.
Been through it myself when I canceled.
But I wasn’t offered a cigarette. I was offered threats of losing money and threats of how I would come back because of how bad the service is of the company I was changing to.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I think p2pnet, dslreports forums, and Karl Bode all compliment each other.
As a whole, you guys bring the news to the people by the people for the people.
Keep up the good work, all of you.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
You know what I find interesting, someone from the CBC uses this site for some material, yet they never give a kudos.
P2Pnet uses CBC for some material and CBC always gets credits and kudos when it happens.
I wrote some articles for Jon about the throttling and the neutrality thing a year ago, I saw my own words, as well as Jon’s, on CBC. No credit “a person” or P2Pnet.
The DSLreports news person also gives kudos to p2pnet, and Jon also gives kudos to Dslreports. Its a kindness and shows no one is ripping each other off.
When “the scene” (ie warez scene) rip’s an app or game, kudos is also given to the maker. (yes, even the bad people give kudos).
What does this have to show to the CBC?
Mr./Ms. CBC,
Does the name P2Pnet make you scared?
Does the name DSLreports make you scared?
Maybe a person is under the gun to write an original piece and doesn’t want the source revealed (his/her little gold mine of info)?
Maybe a the mainstream media doesn’t have enough room in an article to add a url (character constraints)?
But this isn’t the first time I notice this, its maybe the 9th or 10th.
But it doesn’t matter. The story and awareness is what matters.
But in this case the CBC did a terrible job at reporting. They didn’t even show the implications and got some “expert” who clearly isn’t aware of the facts and whats happening in the real world to comment in the article.
But the user comments in the CBC article reflect whats going on. More so than the CBC article itself.
The CBC didn’t investigate enough for the article they put out.
But the commenters on the CBC article know BettER.
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Wow. That’s low, even for p2pnet.
Mark Goldstein’s blog (which is followed by most telecom reporters) “broke” the story at 7 a.m. The p2pnet article was posted at 3 pm that day. And the p2pnet basically copies Goldstein’s spin, including the reference to a Verizon case.
What is it you are whining about, again? And why is it that you did not properly credit Goldstein’s earlier posting, which — particularly given the Verizon spin — was clearly your uncredited source?
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:34 am
As it says in the story, frequent tip-poster Marc was my source. And the angle is a repeat of a perspective I’ve posted several times in the past.
But I recognise the person who posted the above comment and this is his last warning …
Cheers!