(3 votes, average: 9.67 out of 10)
Loading ...Canadians lambaste Bell Mobility, TELUS over “15 cent cash grab”
By Joaquim P. Menezes
Crooks, criminals, thugs, money grubbers, gougers, sleaze bags – these and other choice epithets (many unprintable) – appearing since yesterday in myriad blog posts – describe what scores of Canadians think of two of this country’s largest cellular service providers Bell Mobility and TELUS.
The trigger for this widespread outrage was the announcements made by the duo on Tuesday that later this summer they’re going to start charging wireless customers, who do not subscribe to a text message bundle as part of their calling plan, 15 cents per incoming text message.
Bell’s new pricing plan will kick in less than a month from now, on Aug. 8, while Telus will start charging customers for incoming messages on Aug. 24.
Frankly it’s difficult to determine what’s more offensive – the newly minted charge for incoming messages, or how the two carriers have sought to justify that.
A Telus spokesperson called the charge “moderate” – and told a major TV station that it’s being imposed to “recover the cost of the investment Telus is making in the network to handle the exponential growth in text messaging.”
And a Bell spokesperson claimed his company is “simply aligning [itself] with market realities.”
Let’s look more closely at these claims, which by the way rank pretty high on my bs meter.
First, the one about the charge being moderate.
As customers will have to fork out 15 cents for any incoming message – regardless of whether it’s from a known party or not, or whether it’s spam or not – the “moderate” claim can’t be substantiated.
Users have no way to block unwanted messages. And to be forced to pay for something you don’t want, but have no control over is outrageous.
As one blogger put it: “Maybe I should quit my job and become a text-message blackmailer. Imagine getting a text message saying, in effect, “Please send us $10 or we will spam you with 10 text messages per day indefinitely.”
As to the “recovering network costs” and “aligning with market realities” bit – these don’t wash either.
When the two carriers formulated their existing rate plans they presumably factored in the impact text messaging would have on their networks.
To now charge users after the fact for incoming messages is unfair, to say the least – and I won’t take issue with those who call it a “cash grab.”
As a source interviewed by our writer Brian Jackson notes: “The carriers are also looking to move pay-as-you-go customers to a monthly billing model.” Read Brian’s fabulous coverage of this issue on our site today.
And that’s simply arm-twisting you into opting for a pricing plan – that you may not really need or want.
Of our national parties the NDP was the first to speak out unequivocally on the issue.
On our site today we feature a podcast of an interview with NDP leader Jack Layton.
An online petition to “Stop the text message cash-grab” started by the NDP garnered over 5,000 signatures in its first 16 hours.
On Wednesday, Industry Minister Jim Prentice – to his credit – took some action, summoning the heads of Bell Mobility and Telus Mobility to Ottawa to explain what he called their “ill-thought” decision.
“While I have no desire to interfere with the day-to-day business decisions of the two private companies, I do have a duty … when necessary, to protect the interests of the consuming public,” Prentice said in a release Wednesday.
Now we would like to hear from you. Here’s your opportunity to tell us what you think on this issue that’s likely to be in the spotlight for many days to come.
Add to: del.icio.us | Digg IT | Furl | Google | magnolia | StumbleIT | Wink | Yahoo! Technorati
July 10th, 2008 at 10:34 am
i am taken away when companies such as bell want to raise prices on a service that you do not have to use. gets slapped up and down by media(which is mostly owned by Rogers) or now even the government. i have not read yet that you can pay a mothly charge, instead of having to pay .15/texted messaging. if the Industry Minister Jim Prentice. is so concerned about helping the consumer why has not done anything regarding the price of gas. this has a damaging effect on Canada’s that text messaging. How Canadians have lost there jobs because of that.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I am outraged by this cash grab! If it proceeds, I will waste no time in changing not only my cell phone service supplier, also my whole package of TV , business phones, residential phones, as well as five of our cell phone services from Aliant to another local supplier (East Link).
July 10th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Can we consider the announcement of Bell and Telus as being collusion and against CRTC rules ?
July 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am
OK, so that means that they get paid twice? Someone sends a text and they get paid and the other party receives the same message and Bell and Telus get paid. So for the same text message, they are receiving money on both ends of the transmission?
July 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I just called Bell Mobility today and had text messaging removed from my cell service. I’m not going to risk any unwanted text messages coming in. This is just screaming at spammers to flood the waves now…
July 10th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Just another cash grab, with an attempt to ‘explain’ the reasons by saying it’s needed to cover the costs of infrastructure. Perhaps if the CRTC allowed more competition in Canada, we’d see realistic rates and packages. Get as many people as possible to voice their displeasure with this. Just look at what the iPhone petition did with Rogers - they just made changes to their data plans for 3G devices 2 days before the launch.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:04 am
This is further proof that the telecoms operators in this country need additional regulation, not less as Mr. Prentice seems to believe.
Strange that Mr Prentice is paying attention to this abuse of the telecom consumers and yet he chose to ignore the abuses that internet users have been suffering for years. I presume that he’s afraid of being hit personally by texting charges!
The abuse that telecom customers in Canada suffer starts right with the terms of service that allow them to change anything any time they want with no recourse to the customer other than stop using the service and often pay hefty early termination fees to do so.
It’s time that the CRTC was split in three … one to deal with CANCON and industry concentration predominantly under the Heritage Ministry, and one to deal with broadcast licensing under Heritage and Industry and the third for telecoms regulation and consumer protection under Industry.
These commissions should be brought under the direct control of the Ministry so that their action and inaction is directly accountable to the Canadian public instead of being appointments from the old boy networks.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I am not completely opposed to charges for incoming SMS messages, but before they charge for incoming messages, they must provide a mechanism so that a user can prevent unwanted messages from arriving. There must be a way to set up an allow list so that I can specify which SMS messages I am willing to receive. With no such mechanism in place the door is open for expensive abuse by spammers with no incentive for the wireless provider to do anything about it since they make money on the abuse.
Unacceptable.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Hey Bell/telus, I got a great idea! you can increase your revenue by billions! how about charging by key press? That way you can get revenue for the most basic use, such as turning the phone off! Charging for unsolicited incomming text messages? what a great idea that is. Let’s see, how little effort would it take to make a programm that sent billions of messages to blocks of phone numbers? hmmm. Cha Ching$$$ We’re in the money now! move over oil proffits! the new king is about to arrive! $$$$$ Money, Money, Money! Gimmy MORE!!!
July 10th, 2008 at 11:38 am
It would be naive of us to think that the government can do anything about this. Layton can of course say whatever he wants. He does not have to really take any action. If you ask me, the only way to stop this “cash grab” is for absolutely everybody to stop sending text messages. Let their “cash grab” backfire. Of course this will never happen. We have become feverishly dependent on cell phones and text messaging, the same way as on oil consumption.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I am on Pay & Talk with Telus. I rarely send or receive text messages. I like only having to pay about $10/month for my phone as I don’t use it very much. They have tried to get me to switch but I will not.
This charge though is ridiculous, it would be tantamount to Canada Post asking us for extra postage when they deliver the mail whether it be a magzine I subscribe to or a leaflet informing me a realtor has sold another home in my area.
The industry minister’s comments about them being ‘private’ companies were probably intended to be ‘private sector’. Both Telus and Bell are publicly traded companies so shareholders could make their displeasure known as well. I think they should do so because this charge for incoming text messages could drive customers to Rogers, thereby reducing Bell and Telus share values.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Asking for payment of an incoming text message would be tantamount to Canada Post asking you to pay for mail deleivered to your address, which has beeh properly “stamped” with the correct postage.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Thank you for clarifying David.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:49 am
The cell phone companies have been making cash out of thin air for a long time now. What is disturbing is the rate at which they are doing it today…
One article equates text messaging to $1310.00 per megabyte
http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/07/01/atts-text-messages-cost-1310-per-megabyte/
while another relates it as being “4 times more expensive than getting data from the hubble Teleschope”
http://www.physorg.com/news129793047.html
July 10th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Telus already tried to charge $2.99 on landline long distance subscribers without any “plan”. It did not last long. I hope Canada Post will not learn from Bell or Telus and charge, say 15 cents, delivery fuel charge, on every bill, birthday card or junk mail they deliver.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
It is time more ways then one for the government to put a stop to these wireless companies raping us every chance they get.
Compared to other countries our wireless providers do nothing short of ripping us off.
We all need to protest this and wireless charges in gerneral!
July 10th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Point 1: Note to Canada Post: why not charge the RECIPIENTS of a mailed letter, in addition to the sender having to pay for postage? Including our monthly Bell and Telus bills of course, just to increase the humiliation? And also why not charge an extra fee to cover increased cost of fuel in your delivery vehicles (oh sorry, you snakes are already doing that…)
Point 2: Note to advertisers on highway billboards: why not send every Canadian driver a bill for every time they drive past one of your ads… of course let them “opt out” by sending you a letter claiming they did not want to read your billboard. Oh wait, better hope my point #1 above is not implemented or you’re gonna have to pay to receive that letter..
Point 3: Note to department stores; why not charge people a fee when they leave the store, whether they bought something or not? after all you have to pay for the lights and air conditioning… but hand them the bill as they exit, and insist on cash payment, because if they send payment in the mail it would add more costs… see Point #1 above.
Let’s get real. When companies are even considering such a cash grab as a charge to receive a text message, it’s crystal clear that we are in desperate need of competition and options. Bell, Telus, Rogers et all need to have their collective clocks cleaned. Regulation can backfire, as the wrong ‘rules’ can be cemented in place, and regulated loop holes can be exploited, making the cash grab legal and virtually irreversible. Only competition (from new outsiders) will keep these guys in the real world….somewhat. And opting out/negative billing? I thought we won that fight years ago, with Rogers Cable (hmmmm) and unwanted extra channels if I recall correctly?
Somewhere these guys fall into the same snake category as the grabbers that wanted to add a charge to each (computer data) CD just in case some people make copies of music CD’s. Principle: “Charge the general public, they have no easy way to complain or resist. And once in place, the charges become institutionalized.”.
I’d like to think we could show them we are ready to challenge these stupid cash grabs.
However I’d predict that after some grandstanding and fancy language, they’ll settle for a lower fee (but a fee nonetheless) and a weak, cumbersome process to ‘opt out’ of unwanted SMS. Of course that will probably attract yet another ‘option fee’.
The way I look at it, these fees are a fundamental change in the contract, and cell phone users should be able to cancel immediately without penalty, plus get the unused portion of their purchased cell phone refunded as well.
Maybe getting a North American plan with a US provider is the best bet. Does not sound very “Canadian” eh, but it beats being raped by our local providers.
Suggestion: It sounds like Industry Minister Jim Prentice is asking questions - a good thing. But if this goes through, we should get every annoyed Canadian to send Industry Minister Jim Prentice’s WIFE or MOTHER (because HE will be able to charge it back to the public) a few text messages. Nothing nasty, just “How are you, just saying Hi”. I’ll bet he’d soon get the message from his loved ones and he’d be incented to do the right thing.
That’s all I can say about this - what I really feel about these money grabbers is not going to make it past the moderators.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
It’s aazing the lengths companies will go to drive customers away. The more costs rise for peripheral services, and really most people actually use a cell phone for voice alls, the fewer and fewer people will bother using it, or look for alternatives outside the mainstream. What goes around coems around, even if it takes a while getting there.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I called this morning to find out if this will affect me. Fortunately, I’m protected by monthly bundle. What I found interesting is the number of upsells they tried before I hung up. They tried to see me a long distance bundle, more monthly minutes and a call forwarding option before I hung up.
Who’s to say this wasn’t a plan hatched by Telus to deliberately prompt a deluge of inbound calls to waiting call centre sharks?
Think about it…announce lousy news about 15 cent texting knowing that it’ll push a million customers to call. Slick call centre reps upsell callers on long distance bundles that will net exponentially more cash than 15 cent texts. After the calls die down, relent on the text charge and cite that they’re bowing to public pressure.
They’re laughing all the way to the bank!
July 10th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I can’t believe all the hype and government concern over a luxury service.
How come we can’t get the same attention with regards to the high rise in fuel costs?
Fuel costs effect EVERYONE one way or another. Text messaging is a luxury.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
This is all so much B.S. Your typical text message probably takes up less bandwidth than saying the word Hello by voice. In addition it is lower priority, voice is high priority because you cannot delay it or break it up more than a few milliseconds and still have it remain understandable. Nobody would notice a 2 - 3 second delay getting a text message.
Just to add fuel to the fire, did you know Shaw is charging for INCOMING long distance?
I wonder who will be the first to charge for incoming email ?
July 10th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
So - Telus frequently sends me SMS messages promoting features or simply thanking me for my business…
I assume these will be “free” to the recipients just like their current voicemail messages - how hypocritical!!!
July 10th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
This is what happens in a marketplace where competition is supposed to exist, but instead small cartels control the market, and the government is too lazy to properly control the atmosphere of competition. This is one more disgusting development in a long line of rip offs that Canadian consumers must endure because of indifference of their elected leaders. If Minister Prentice does not move to block this development he is paying us all lip service with his hearings, and as for Bell, I am cancelling my service immediately and moving to another carrier. I estimate that I recieve about 300 text messages a month, and I am not prepared to hand over another $45/month on top of my existing service.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I would suggest that we all find creative ways in which to waste the money that Bell and Telus seem so determined to milk from us. Long rambling calls to their customer service department should do the trick. Engage them in expensive and time wasting conversations about the contract. Go through it with them in minute detail it will end up costing them a fortune.
Of course, it could just give them an excuse to tack on another charge.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
So, I followed the link to the NDP petition against the additional charges. Did everyone notice the solicitation, by the party, of permission to “occasionally” distribute text messages! Good bloody grief!
July 10th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
why can’t they just charge text sender and share the revenue like postage among sending and receiving countries?
I will also like point out this charge to recipient per text is tantamount to substantial change of contract and they should not be allowed and let user has the option to void contract without charge. The bottom like is they can add fearture to let poeple optin not the orther way around. otherwise we have “in-time opt out” billing mess again
July 11th, 2008 at 11:51 am
network upgrades to handle the increase in volume? they’ve used that line before, it’s called “non-governmental” system access fee that they happily tack on to our monthly bills.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I haven’t found the contract I signed yet but I was wondering if anyone feels this is a breach of the contract (almost 3 years ago). It probably isn’t written but I recall the salesperson telling me that “it was free to receive text messages” when I signed. Initially I told them I did not want it on my phone and they told me I would only be charged when I sent text messages. I wonder if that “verbal” agreement would stand up in court?
July 13th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I use my cell a lot and pay for my son’s as well. TelusMobility gets approx $220 a month from me every month. Telus gets about $85 for my home phone and internet service. My son’s cell has a text package so he is ok. I have a data package for my Palm that is $30 a month and they are still going to charge me for incoming texts. If this .15 does not change, I will switch from Telus and TelusMoblity. Pure and simple this is a cash grab.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
This is unethical behaviour by the phone companies. First they encourage everyone to sign up for FREE text updates on weather, news, sports, entertainment etc etc and then, when they have the volume they want, they slap on an uncontrollable charge - I’m glad to see our reps in Ottawa getting involved. I can’t imagine how they let this one get public!!!
July 14th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Maybe Rogers subscribers are sending all the text message to Bell/Telus users, Rogers is getting paid but not Bell/Telus.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
If we the customer call our providers today and not only ask them to block all incoming\outgoing text messages to our phones, but also have them remove any text messaging costs from our plans where possible, I am sure the revenue lost would send the strongest message, one they cannot ignore. Instead of waiting for someone else like politicians take control of this issue, here is your chance to demonstrate your power as a customer. We can sit around and complain to each other, or we can make that call to show them whose is really boss. We are!. I get tired of raised costs every time I turn around, but if I don’t do anything about it, I am the loser. Don’t let them treat you like a loser! Make that call today people, be the boss, take control, make them hear you.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I am not surprised these service providers want to benefit financially from a service they provide to their customers. After all, the cost of the infrastructure, technical staff, etc. required to support this deluge of texting must be significant. However, with the financial benefits must come some sort of service-level agreement to ensure the customer is not simply at the mercy of these ISPs. Unfortunately, their track record is excellent when it comes to making life difficult and expensive and not very good when it comes to reliable and efficient customer service. They are now the victim of their own tactics.
July 15th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Rogers… Rogers… aren’t these the same arrogant S.O.B.s who tried negative optioning to plump up their cable TV revenues?
And just as the airwaves may be being openned up to… wait for it… competition.
Timing is everything, and theirs is laughably poor.
Give an alternative… PLEASE… We are ALL WAITING!!!
July 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Charging?? My friend and were texting each other over the weekend and then she didn’t answer so I stopped as well. She didn’t get my last 2 texts until yesterday morning - I didn’t get hers until this morning. She never got other texts from family over the weekend as well and just got them. So they are now going to charge for service that people don’t get??
By the way the provider is Bell.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I think that this is absolutly rediculous. Why should I pay more for a text message package when I dont use it. I do get the odd text message come in from friends and family…but it never mattered because they were paying to send it. It would be the same thing as someone mailing you a letter and you were not allowed to receive it until you paid for the price of the stamp. What is going to be next….I use to be a loyal customer…but not now….as soon as I can I will be changing cell phone plans, phone and internet….I think they are going to lose alot of customers.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:52 am
I am completely appalled that these companies with all their services fees and charges would think it is okay to double dip. I should not be responsible for paying for something that I didn’t ask for. 15 cents outgoing and 15 cents incoming… that is 30 cents for a few words of text. I could send a letter by mail, containing many words, for cheaper than 2 text messages. How sad is that?
July 30th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I wish I could charge my provider everytime I get a Spam Text or E-mail for that matter.
I run a small business and I’m very tempted to logg and Invoice. Lets say 50 cents per. That sounds resonable.
And then get a creditor to constntly hound them when they are overdue. Add late fees and service charges. And file reports to the Better Business Bureau.
Wiyh their logic, I can easily justify these actions.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Can anybody answer the question - Can I cancel my text message capability on my Bell contract so that I can neither receive nor send messages.
August 3rd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
so if telus and bell decide to charge us for our received text messages, why not send a couple of million — not to telus (they would just absorb the charges) or to one of our elected officials(this might work, but we the taxpayers may get stuck with the bill)
but we should send it to the prime minister’s daughter, or the family members of our elected officials.
that way, we don’t have to pay for it, and maybe they would see the greed of it when they are on the wrong side of the bill.
all we need is the phone number of someone who would be close enough but not paid by telus or the governement.
the message could read : “But it’s only 15 cents??” or
“I bought shares in TELUS/BELL”
……..
August 9th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Thanks! Really amazing. I wish i could spend my time on writing articles…just have no time for it.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Thanks! Really amazing. Big ups!
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:53 am
Telus spokesperson called the charge “moderate”
15 cents is not a “moderate” charge because it’s the same amount they charge for outgoing SMS.
THey should follow what US providers do - charge less for incoming, say 5 cents.
October 8th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
This is outrageous.I think its high time somebody stopped this telecomm.companies from ripping off the canadian public.This is the time for the consumers to rise up and fight the unending extortion of consumers by this shyllock telecom companies…….
November 2nd, 2008 at 5:43 am
interesting, i’ll be back later
November 3rd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
This is crazy! No one sends us text messages, we do not even subscribe to it. This is the 2nd time BELL has sent us a message and then WE get charged for it!!
December 25th, 2008 at 1:58 am
After just falling victim to $27 a month in charges to some total trivia Spam (who cares if over 90% of the Canadian population lives close to the American border), I called Telus and told them to block all incoming text messages. I am ona Pay & Talk account which I only use for about 25 minutes a month. I was astounded today when I looked at my transactions for the month - and saw these “Non Financial Transaction” on my statement! They were apparently charges for some totally frivolous trivia answers such as :”90 percdnt of Canadian People live very close to the American Border” Like I would care !! Plus the fact that I already knew this
I have contacted Telus and requested that All incoming text messages are blocked and that any charges incurred so far will be reversed.
Merry Christmas everyone!
Dianne
May 21st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
So you think that you can control them. Well I guess you can a little bit.
Each one of those big companies has a license through CRTC. Just have the CRTC revoke their license. Easy.
Or do what I will be doing, call them the first time they charge me for an incoming message and tell them that I did not request or want that message. Since they do not give me the ability to NOT ACCEPT the message and therefor not be charged they must then NOT charge me for it. If they pursue it then a class action suite can be invoked against them regarding it.
The law stipulates that you cannot charge someone for a service that they are not able to control. Since you cannot control the inbound message you cannot be charged for it.
Bell should be looking at changing their system and sending the charge to the sender. In this case they have the number that it originated from, if not they can then just not allow the message to go through. Hence, say the message came from a holder of a Rogers account, Bell will invoice Rogers for the message (and visa versa). If the message comes from a website with no billable number attached then reject it back to the owner of the site via email.
Sounds so simple and will not anger anyone.
Doug