Needed: protection from telecom predators
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- This is Part II of my p2pnet story Are you a victim of SMS billing scams?
The Consumers Union says consumers are being ripped off by the telecom players (who threaten to terminate cell accounts at your expense if you don’t pay unsolicited or contested premium SMS charges).
The union wants the CRTC to ensure basic consumer protection with a premium SMS feature similar to the blocking of 1-900 numbers on phones.
Makes sense to me, as a parent.
In a nutshell, Telus, Bell Mobility, Rogers, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA), and some American company, TMG Americas Inc, are telling the CRTC Canadians should send them their private cell bills (yeah right, let me get back to you on that).
The CWTA which, I believe, regulates the SMS industry here in Canada, said they investigated the problem and it’s basically the customers’ fault – that the CRTC shouldn’t have to put into place an SMS blocking feature to protect Canadian consumers because the Telco’s and the CWTA regulate themselves just fine as is (consumers be damned).
However, the Consumers Union has now upped the ante by actually showing the CRTC evidence that contradicts what the Telecom companies and the CWTA had to say by providing actual correspondence between people who have been ripped off by premium SMS messages.
This evidence — which includes correspondence between the people and the CWTA with customers being brushed off! –
can be found here: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2009/8620/u11_200901951.htm
The Consumers Union filing is a big one and it has great information., It’s in French but if you need to, you can pass it through Google translate if needed here, http://www.google.ca/language_tools?hl=en).
Emails from the “self” regulating body (CWTA):
Some select info »»»
- Customer gets billed for Premium SMS he never made/asked for. Calls Rogers (Fido) and they tell him to complain to the CWTA.
- He contacts the CWTA and they tell him it’s his problem but they will refund him anyhow (after lengthy Emails).
- The customer more or less says: what do you mean it’s my problem, I never subscribed to any SMS that I’m getting, and you even have my cell number wrong!
The CWTA tells him »»»
“———- From: ca@txt-support.com <ca@txt-support.com> Date: 2008/8/20
To: <XXXX@ gmail.com> Dear XXXX, We have attempted to resolve this matter with you and although we are not required to do so,”
Hmmm They aren’t required to resolve the problems? (BTW, www.txt.ca = CWTA)
So who’s regulating what?
Where does the consumer go and to whom does the consumer complain to?
The CWTA (who originally said the Consumer Union is more or less full of it) responded to the Consumers Union and the CRTC »»»
this new evidence in these circumstances will constitute great prejudice and injustice to CWTA and other parties.
In light of the above, CWTA respectfully requests the Commission either
a) Expunge that part of the Union’s Reply from the record, or
b) Provide CWTA, and other respondents and interveners 30 days to reply to the new evidence.
“Great prejudice and injustice” for who again?
“Expunge” it? Heck I’ll put this on Wikileaks.
“Provide the CWTA and all the Canadian Telco’s and American interests 30-days to review this new evidence\? How could it be new when they said it?
Interesting.
Quebecs Consumers Union = +1
Telecom industry/CWTA/American interests = 0
Will the CRTC stop this? Will they see there are indeed problems and people are being billed for nothing?
Will the CRTC see that the CWTA said “they don’t have to the resolve matters”?
Basic consumer protections and rights are being blocked by the CWTA and the Telecom companies (and American companies who want to look at your cell bills it seems), and being fought for you by the l’Union des consommateurs.
Surprised?
There’s a lot more in the Consumers Union CRTC filing, and it’s all worth reading.
Stay tuned for round 3
For now, have you ever received premium text messages you never subscribed to?
Share your story. Post it here, or email jon here – p2pnet @ shaw dot ca.
Ottawa Gal – p2pnet
March, 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.
March 12th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Some 4-letter terms only serve to insult the public’s intelligence, and should be removed from all language…
- CRTC
- CCTS
- CWTA
- Bell
- (you get the idea)
March 12th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2009/8620/u11_200901951.htm
1. Per Rogers: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2009/8620/u11_200901951/1033119.pdf
Rogers states: The user, “inherited a subscription to a premium message service that had been initiated by the previous holder of that telephone number.
2. Rogers stated: “Rogers subsequently learned that the aggregator of the premium service offered the customer further compensation if the customer would provide them with the invoice showing their service began in February 2007. The customer refused to cooperate.”
3. Per Rogers, para 49, “If a customer is unhappy with the SMS charges it has received from one carrier, the customer has several alternatives to choose from.” LOL! For a dollar?
4. In para 52, Rogers states: give it to the CCTS to handle, again.
5. All parties state the Consumers Union filing is “Application are unfounded”
6. The CWTS says: “The Application suggests CWTA and the industry do not adequately protect the consumer interest. This is an unfounded claim.”
How many people even know the CWTS exists? How many know the CCTS exists? Many don’t even know about the CRTC and its involvement with everything. I consider myself web-savvy and i’ve never heard of the CWTS till the Consumers Union filing.
Even the CWTA stated to a customer, “(*.txt.ca) we don’t have to help you”.
No wonder the CWTA wants the Consumer Unions public record “expunged”!
7. In paragraph 34, the CWTS sates: “CSC programs may only send messages to someone who has requested them.” Well Rogers already proved this statement false. And so did the CWTA’s own words per the Email submited by the Consumer Union.
8. in para 35 the CWTS states “Based on CWTAâs experience and the results of the CSC audits, CWTA is satisfied that that is not the case.” Again, Rogers already made these points moot and proved otherwise. And so did the CWTA’s own Email to the customer.
9. the CWTS states (appendix A): “By provisioning Common Short Codes, the Canadian wireless industry hopes to offer all mobile phone customers new and ubiquitous text messaging experiences. The industry anticipates these new experiences will further the growth of text messaging.”
Since there are failings now, as Rogers showed, and since there is an anticipation of growth, should consumers not have a method of protection at the consumer union states?
10. Per Telus, “In the event that this review of the customerâs activities shows that the customer has not sent an outgoing text message or otherwise confirmed their subscription in accordance with the double opt-in process to a short code premium service, TELUS will issue a one-time credit equivalent to the amount charged for any premium short codes messages received in the past month. The credit is issued because customers in these cases are receiving and being invoiced for short codes premium messages sent in error.”
Yet telus states that they reserve the right to cancel the service.
11. Per Telus: “This scenario is exceptional because of the double opt-in feature safeguard in place for these short codes premium services.” “TELUSâ customer representatives will also provide customers with information on the procedure to unsubscribe from short codes premium services.”
So obviously people call to get out or complain, or ask how to get out. Its not very clear to a user or the parent, is it?
12. per Telus #10: “For example, TELUSâ procedures include the case of customer receiving short codes premium messages on a newly activated handset because of a subscription initiated by the customer who previously had the telephone number. In that case, a one-time credit will be provided and the customer will be instructed on the procedure to unsubscribe from the short code premium service.” A crdit then its your problem to get out the mess.
14. Per Telus: “The CCTS will already investigate telecommunications complaints brought to its attention that fall within its mandate. Wireless service billing disputes can be addressed by the CCTS.” Again, How many people know what the CCTS is, or have the time to write all these places and complain to all these places? Do the rep’s tell people to complaint to the CCTS?
13. per Telus paragraph #16: “Therefore, TELUS has the right to suspend services should a customer fail to pay any invoiced amount when it is due, including any amounts charged for short codes message services.”
Yet we already determined that problems do happen, and Telus employee’s instruct the user that its their problem. So everything is the customers problem and Telus says they can and will cancel a service for non-payment of an SMS. And the CWTA says its not their problem per their own words!
16. Per telus #18, “TELUS already has a process in place to deal with customer complaints relating to charges for unsolicited short codes messages.”
Which is to tell the customer its their problem to cancel.
I can go on….
=============================
Telus reference #7: “Moreover, the Union des consommateursâ requested relief would interfere with the operation of competitive market forces beyond the minimum extent necessary contrary to the Policy Direction.7″ Policy Direction, section 1(a)(ii).
CBC: the customers cited in the application had their complaints resolved but only because they contacted his group and were advised on what to do, such as filing complaints with the CCTS and CRTC. He wants to ensure all customers are protected.
Shit, i’m just a regular user who never even heard of this CWTA, yet all these telecom and CWTA filings are ful of holes.
There needs to be a consumer protection in place.
The CWTA doesn’t have it.
Per the Wireless providers own words, they don’t have it either.
What does a consumer do? Who regulates this?
Self regulation obviously doesn’t work.
And this American company telling the person, “send me your cell invoice”? WTF is that about? They can go to hell.