How come Canadians, Canadian firms still have to be fined by the US or UK government for their wrong doings and not by their own Canadian Government firstly now too often too. Remember the Canadian Conrad Black sitting in a US jail? http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/the-canadian-way-of-doing-business/
Chairman Anthony Lacavera unveiled the company’s pricing plans, which range from $15 to $45. He said the plans represent a normalization with what’s found in the rest of the world, where there are no fees for system access, 911 or activation. The plans also offer customers free caller ID, call forward and unlimited Wind-to-Wind calling across the country. The more expensive plans, at $35 and $45, include unlimited local and province-wide calling, with the top-end plan offering unlimited Canada-wide calls. Data plans range between $10 for access to instant messaging, Facebook and MySpace, to $55 for USB laptop sticks. Wind appears to have introduced domestic roaming charges. Wind customers will have to pay 25 cents a minute for calls outside of their home zoneshttp://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/091216/canada/technology_wind_mobile_cellphone_launch
The pretentious new conservative federal government also now has known about the much too many customer abuses, false misleading advertising by the big three , Rogers, Bell and TELUS since it came into office and now next had they been willing they could have done more about it.. including the fderal consumer affairs department, CRTC as well,. Most Canadian government bureaucracy still do a pretentious job, they do a minimum token job, just pretending to d something so they can’t get fired and still get paid for it too. Consumers also now have to take part of the blame for their own inactions, they have not cried out loud enough for all to hear, have no demanded forcibly that all these crooks be punished, dealt with now as well. Wel I certainly do! I guess PM Stephen Harper’s mostly lying past promises of accountability and transparency does not apply to the fderal civil and public servants, RCMP and consumer affairs inluded now..
Quebec to end automatic cellphone contract renewals, surprise fees CBC.ca - The Quebec government has tabled legislation to better protect consumers in the province when they sign cellphone contracts. Justice Minister Kathleen Weil said laws aimed at protecting cellphone users were written in the early 1970s and don’t address current consumer habits. She said Bill 60, introduced Tuesday, would revise outdated rules. There can be “very onerous penalty fees” to pull out of a contract once a service provider automatically renews it — usually for a period lasting three years, Weil said. The bill would prohibit the renewal of cellphone contracts without a customer’s written approval, she said. It would also force merchants to disclose the total cost of the goods and services offered, a move Weil said should prevent customers from being caught off guard by hefty fees for services they don’t want, such as text messaging. In addition, companies won’t be able to suddenly increase fees during the life of the contract. “Consumers often don’t understand everything that they have agreed to when they’ve signed that contract,” the minister said. “The contracts are a little vague, and there are services that are added over time without their knowledge and without their consent.” “The first thing that [merchants] do is offer you a free cellphone, and it’s sort of the lure that gets you into that relationship,” Weil told reporters. Merchants will have to explain existing warranty protection Weil said the new law would make it illegal for merchants to sell extended warranties before telling customers what the manufacturer already offers for warranty protection. It would also put an end to expiry dates on prepaid cellphone gift cards. The minister said the bill, amending the province’s Consumer Protection Act, would correct an imbalance in an evolving industry. “In consumer protection you often have an imbalance that happens over time and in the whole field of telecommunications. There is not a jurisdiction in North America that hasn’t noticed this imbalance.” Michel Arnold, head of the non-profit consumer rights group Option consommateurs, said Quebec is the first jurisdiction in the country to introduce this kind of consumer protection. Weil said officials in the province receive nearly 700 formal complaints about cell phone contracts each year — about 10 per cent of all consumer complaints — as well as thousands of inquiries. Bill 60 is expected to be adopted before the end of the year… and what about in the rest of Canada too?
It costs a cellphone company a mere third of a cent to transmit a text message that it charges customers as much as 15 cents to send, estimates a University of Waterloo professor. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/06/18/tech-text-message-pricing-keshav-cellphone.html
Also see
lies, the too common acts of civil and public servants, consumer affairs, justice ministers, lawyers, politicians and business persons, pastors too.. http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/the-canadian-way-of-doing-business/
BC mom warns consumers of changing cellphone contracts that could rack up costs Winnipeg Free Press - VANCOUVER, BC – A British Columbia mother is warning consumers not assume their cellphone contracts are written in stone after new charges started appearing on her bill a year into her three-year agreement. Rosanna von Sacken, who bought a Rogers Wireless plan that included phones for her three teenage children, discovered her contract terms had changed last summer allowing new charges for incoming text messages.Rogers started charging 15 cents for incoming messages not included in texting plans about a year after Telus and Bell implemented the same fee. That’s despite her original contract signed in September 2008 stating that all text messages are free. Each child also has a plan for unlimited texts for 10 numbers.With three teenagers, von Sacken said the extra charges started to add up quickly on her bill this fall.She complained to the company and the Better Business Bureau, but both said nothing could be done because of fine print in her original contract which states Rogers can change the contract terms “upon notice.” “The p oint here is the way their billing practices go. It’s wrong for Rogers to be allowed to change these fees and services,” in the middle of a contract, von Sacken said. Bruce Cran, president of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, said complaints such as hers are “chronic” across the country. “It’s quite disgusting that you have to read through the fine print with a magnifying glass to understand what you are signing,” Cran said, adding that Rogers isn’t the only company consumers are complaining about. “Too much of this stuff goes on in Canada.”Cellphone service and equipment also ranked the highest on the list of complaints nationwide by the BBB in 2008.
Like I have even said before ” Cellular firms get new customer rules but they still have not honoured all the old ones.. Canada’s mobile phone companies will be required to make sure consumers understand their contracts when they buy a cellphone under a new code of conduct but will the phone companies next fully honour the same contracts? Unlikley. Most Consumer advocates don’t think much of the new code. A code of conduct adopted by Canada’s cell phone service providers is a political answer that doesn’t address real consumer concerns, another competent critic now has still charged .The code will be administered by the useless, pretentious Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, a body set up two years ago by the industry to negotiate disputes between customers and companies. In its first year, 2007-08, CCTS was still unable able to resolve about 40 per cent, of the complaints according to its own website. What a very high failure rate. About one-third of the complaints were related to wireless services. 40 per cent, that is about the number of unhappy Customers with Bell’s Internet services too” http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/commissioner-for-complaints-for-telecommunications-services/
Rogers charges for ‘free’ text messages CBC.ca The BBB in Burnaby, B.C., has received 581 consumer complaints about Rogers Communications in the last three years. It has given Rogers an “F” rating for failing to resolve many of those complaints to the customer’s satisfaction. Rogers also has an “F” rating at the BBB’s Toronto and North York locations, where 1,045 complaints were logged in the same period. Approximately half of those complaints were about billing. The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association brought in the Code of Conduct for Wireless Service Providers in August of this year, which Rogers and the other major providers voluntarily agreed to abide by. Industry code not enforced The code states consumers like von Sacken, whose contracts change, should not be forced to accept those changes.”In the case of such material changes that are unfavourable to customers, we either give them the right to terminate the contract without any additional fees for early termination, or allow them to remain on the unchanged contract.” “Nobody [from Rogers] has mentioned that I have that option,” said von Sacken.Spokesperson Holland insisted by email that Rogers does not consider its cancellation fee to be a penalty. “We don’t charge a penalty, but rather in accordance with Section 8 of the Rogers terms of service any cancellation of service before the end of the customer’s commitment period (i.e. term) is subject to any applicable early cancellation fee. In this customer’s case, the fee is $20 per month remaining in her term,” Holland wrote.”I don’t feel protected by the clause at all,” von Sacken said. “Part of the problem is the wireless companies haven’t made a huge push in telling people that exists,” Von Sacken has a simple message for Rogers, about charging extra fees: “Other companies doing it does not make it right.”… , but this clause basically says that they can change the contract anyway they like, anytime they like? And if you want out you’re paying a large fee? That’s insane. If Rogers can change the terms of thie contracts then consumers should be able to change them also. IE Change my contract, take your phone and shove it. “ I’m a serious, UNIX coding, network engineering, server maintaining Sysadmin computer geek. However after getting screwed by Rogers for two years and seeing Telus and Bell are even worse I’m looking at dropping our cell phones completely. Welcome to 1998 and the land line. It absolutely galls me but Canada is the land of the highest cell phone rates and abysmal service. ” ” It’s about time that the consumers in Canada stand up to these Rogues like Telus,Bell, RODGERS . Canadians pay the highest cost in the world for these services and then let them get away with fudging their contract obligations. WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE CONTRACT!!! The contract is a two party agreement Rogers and Customer; not a chain around the customer. Rogers has the right to change its service at any time!!! No you don’t, not before both parties in the contract agree on the new terms, and if they don’t the contract is terminated. This is sick! and they (Rogers Telus and Bell) are teaming up to stop WIND (GlobeAlive) from entering the market. SHAME ON YOU. and what’s their excuse, WIND is not a Canadian Company. I am a STRONG supporter of ensuring that companies in Canada are Canadian, but if this is how our Canadian companies act (Greed Deception Manipulation), Foreign Companies should be allowed to Enter the Market to teach these “Canadian Based” companies a lesson
Rogers Wireless Comes Under Fire, Charges for “Free” Text Messages Mobile Magazine
OTTAWA “Ever since the invention of cell phones and teenagers, the three Canadian giants — Bell, Rogers and Telus — have had the consumer by the wallet with a monthly hell of incomprehensible billings. As a result, Canadians pay some of the highest cellphone rates in the western world. The Conservative government had the right objective when it recently allowed a new player into the cellular field. Stephen Harper’s government announced that, by cabinet decree, it was effectively approving the entry of Globalive into the Canadian cellphone market. The move overturned a previous ruling by the federal regulator, the CRTC, that Globalive was effectively Egyptian owned and controlled, and therefore not eligible to operate a Canadian telecommunications venture. Industry Minister Tony Clement declared “Globalive is a Canadian company,” and welcome to the cellular market. Globalive long ago went through a lengthy ownership review process by Industry Canada, and was approved as a Canadian company to bid for a piece of the cellular broadcast frequencies put up for auction by the feds last year. The company successfully won a piece of the bandwidth set aside for new entrants to the Canadian market (including Videotron, a subsidiary of Quebecor Media Inc.,). Government insiders say that no matter what happens down the road, the Harper administration wanted to send a message to the CRTC and all players in the telecom biz — namely, that consumers are going to get a break from past monopolistic behaviour, even if it is by cabinet decree. A Conservative strategist says it was also “a shot across the bow” of the television broadcasters and cable companies that are locked in a dispute over compensation for local TV stations. “The message is a warning of what the government may be prepared to do if they think they can resolve their dispute entirely at the expense of consumers.”
Bell, Rogers and Telus are still not about to give up their greedy, immoral ways
MONTREAL – The federal Competition Bureau says cable provider Cogeco (TSX:CCA) has clarified advertising claims about the speed of its Internet services in two Quebec cities. Cogeco was promoting its Internet services to residents in the cities of Drummondville and Saint-Hyacinthe, as being “the fastest”. The federal agency had accused Cogeco of promoting its Internet services to residents in Drummondville and St-Hyacinthe, both east of Montreal, without basing the claims on fair comparisons. The Competition Bureau says the claims were misleading under its legislation because they didn’t allow consumers to compare the speed of Cogeco’s services with those its competitors and because there was no way to verify the claims “In the Internet services field, speed and price are key factors in consumers’ purchasing decisions,” said Andrea Rosen, Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Fair Business Practices Branch. “It is important that all representations in this regard be clear and truthful so that consumers can make informed purchasing decisions.” The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that contributes to the prosperity of Canadians by protecting and promoting competitive markets and enabling informed consumer choice.
Enquiry / Complaint Form
Contacts: Public Affairs Branch Greg Scott Senior Communications Advisor 819-953-4257
Competition Bureau Information Centre 819-997-4282 / Toll free: 1-800-348-5358 TTY (hearing impaired): 1-800-642-3844 www.competitionbureau.gc.ca
Contacts: Public Affairs Branch Greg Scott Senior Communications Advisor 819-953-4257
Competition Bureau Information Centre 819-997-4282 / Toll free: 1-800-348-5358 TTY (hearing impaired): 1-800-642-3844 www.competitionbureau.gc.ca
Do Complain about this pretentious Bureau now as well
WHY DID THEY the federal Competition Bureau GO NOW AFTER cable provider Cogeco , DID BELL TELL THEM TO DO SO, AND NOT GO AFTER BELL WHEN BELL ALSO CLEARLY HAS BEEN GUILTY OF FALSE MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENT FOR YEARS AS I HAVE DETAILED MANY TIMES ON THE NET?
DEC 17,2009 SO I NEXT GOT A CALLED TODAY FROM THE USELESS, PRETENTIOUS FEDERAL COMPETITION BUREAU SINCE I SENT THEM A FULL PAGE OF MY COMPLAINT TO THEM AS WELL www.competitionbureau.gc.ca AS TO WHY THEY ARE NOT DOING MUCH NOW STILL FOR DECADES TOO ABOUT THE FALSE MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENTS BY BELL, ROGERS, TELUS? AND WHY TELUS HAS TO TAKE ROGERS TO THE QUEEN’S COURTS AND NOT THE GOVERNMENT. AND SHE NEXT REPLIED SHE ONLY CALLED ME TO GIVE ME SOME INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THEY DO, BUT THEY CANNOT ACTUALLY DISCLOSE THE ACTUAL THINGS THEY DO, OR HAVE DONE, BECAUSE THEY ARE A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, AND LIKE THE ALSO CLEARLY BAD RCMP, POLICE, THEY ALSO DO TEND TO USE THE CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE TO COVER UP THEIR CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE PRETENTIOUS, INADEQUATE WORKS. SHE SAID SHE WAS NOT A PROSECUTOR ONLY AN INFORMATION OFFICER, ANOTHER WORD FOR LYING PUBLIC RELATIONSHIP. BUCK PASSER? SO WHY DID THEY, SHE NOW BOTHER TO WASTE MY TIME, TAX PAYERS MONEY CALLING ME THEN? A SWEET FEMALE VOICE DOES NOT PLEASE ME FOR I WANT TO SEE REAL RESULTS HERE..
THIS USELESS, PRETENTIOUS FEDERAL COMPETITION BUREAU IS LIKE THE INCOMPETENT BAD POLICE, RCMP WHO COULD NOT PROTECT THE PRIME MINISTERS RESIDENCE OR EVEN THE HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT FROM INTRUDERS, AND ARE A LAUGHING STOCK OF CANADA NOW ALSO STILL TOO
Bad apples STILL do not fall fall from the tree.. HALIFAX, N.S. – The head of a civil liberties group is accusing the police of using privacy legislation to block public scrutiny of their actions, a day after the RCMP refused to reveal details of a fatal shooting involving one of its officers. David Eby of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association said he’s seeing more police agencies cite the federal privacy law as a reason for not releasing information about investigations into officers’ conduct. “It’s really not about privacy rights,” he said from Vancouver on Tuesday. “We feel they’re using it as a shield to avoid accountability.” His comments come in the aftermath of a decision by Nova Scotia RCMP to not charge an officer who fatally shot a reportedly intoxicated and suicidal man who was in his home alone in Cape Breton. John Simon died Dec. 8, 2008, after he was shot on the Wagmatcook First Nation reserve. His family argue police didn’t need to enter the residence, where Simon was reportedly sitting on the toilet when the officer is believed to have climbed in through a window. RCMP said at a news conference Monday that a probe by the Halifax police department determined the officer who fired the gun did so in self-defence. But they refused to answer questions about the incident, including why Simon was considered a threat, who made a 911 call, whether the officer was authorized to enter the house and how many times Simon was shot. RCMP Chief Supt. Blair McKnight said Monday he wasn’t “permitted to release a copy of this investigation or the details” because of the privacy law. When asked on Tuesday to explain how the law prevents the release of more details, the RCMP issued a news release reiterating its position: “Under the privacy law of Canada, the RCMP cannot disclose the specifics of any criminal investigation.” Eby said there have been other cases in British Columbia where police have cited the federal law to withhold the release of information into cases probing police conduct. “They’re taking a certain interpretation of privacy law that most benefits them in avoiding having to explain difficult circumstances,” he said. Lisa Austin, a law professor at the University of Toronto, said the federal law is so discretionary that it allows forces to use it liberally to decide if personal information needs to be protected. “That is a huge problem with the federal legislation – there’s so much discretion built into it,” she said. “You can exempt things for privacy reasons and then there’s a discretion to take into account the public interest. Well who’s exercising the discretion? The people who want to keep it hushed up.” Simon’s common-law spouse, Patsy MacKay, said police revealed some details of the case to her, but said they were limited by the federal legislation from answering all of her questions. MacKay said she still has no clear understanding as to why the Halifax police, which investigated the RCMP’s conduct, determined that the officer acted appropriately. MacKay said police told her she could file a request for the report through the federal Access to Information Act, but that it would be largely blacked out. Supt. Mike Burns of the Halifax police said the officer who entered Simon’s home fired his pistol at him “after reasonably perceiving that John Simon posed a threat of grievous bodily harm or death, and believing that he could not otherwise preserve himself from grievous bodily harm other than by using deadly force.” Eby said the case adds to a growing demand for civilian groups to be in charge of investigating police conduct rather than having officers do it themselves. Halifax police led the investigation into Simon’s death, but RCMP spokeswoman Brigdit Leger said RCMP officers were involved in the year-long probe. The RCMP would have no input into the final report or the decision to charge, she said in a news release There are several different models in place across the country to investigate the conduct of police, but provincial oversight bodies have no authority over the RCMP. Ontario created a Special Investigations Unit, made up of civilian investigators, to handle cases involving police that result in death or injury to civilians. In Alberta, cases are handled by a unit headed by a civilian director and made up of 10 active police officers and six civilians. Nova Scotia Justice Minister Ross Landry has said he will develop a new arms-length, independent unit to investigate police actions sometime next year. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091215/national/ns_rcmp_shooting
http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/17147/ Mad Canadian telecomunications giants slug fest
and what about them also going after the big guys like Bell, Rogers, TELUS too?
Now this Mis-advertisement of the actual speeds attained also reflects the common problem we tend to have also in Canada with the false, misleading advertising, trade practices by Bell, Rogers, Videotron in regard to the speeds of their iphone and DSL, ADSL, cable internet services. These Communication, ISP firms amongst others are known to inflate, advertise substantially higher speeds than the consumer will actual get next get on the average, and the next related internet congestion cause web connectivity problems, and also reductions of the downloads speeds too..
Now what about having now the much needed real consumer protections for the citizens of Canada here as well from the greedy, lying, no good corporations? fully enforced when? not more lies saying it exists…
I TOO HAVE MADE ERRORS, ERRORS IN JUDGMENT, MISTAKES, BUT AT LEAST I TRY HARD NOT TO DO IT AGAIN, SOMETHING THE COPS AND JUDGES, CRTC, CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVANTS WOULD DO WELL TO TRY REALLY HARD AT NOW AS WELL.. INSTEAD OF TOO OFTEN REPEATING THEM..
