The non conformer's Canadian Weblog

September 6, 2008

Restrictive Trade practises

 
US Supreme Court OKs Cellphone Unlocking Suit. The cell phone unlocking exemption covers cases where cell phone software locks are circumvented “for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.” This could force AT&T to unlock the coveted iphone. AT&T is Apple’s exclusive phone provider. “They may be more unwilling than otherwise because the iphone is such a big seller. Unlocking your iphone is perfectly legal under a 2006 exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. AT&T, the bundled phone provider for the new iphone, threatened legal action over the weekend against a Belfast-based company that claims it has developed software to circumvent the locks that prevent the iphone from being used on networks other than AT&T’s. As the Cellphone users of America know they can  unlock their phones and they have nothing to lose but their roaming charges? The new copyright ruling that lets Americans unlock their phones without legal liability should be a significant benefit for cell addicts around the country. Basically, the exemption will make it possible for consumers to take cellphones with them when switching carriers. In the past, providers forced customers to turn in or throw out old phonees when switching to a new carrier.
 
http://blog.wired.com/
   
 Misleading Corporate advertising and even  Restrictive Trade practices such as even locking the phones  should have been banned before they were implemented. what any person does with his product, iphone included,  after he bought is basically no one’s business..
  
do see also https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/apple-mr-jobs-has-admitted-privacy-invasion-iphone/
 
http://wittnessed.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/popular-christian-based-readinsg-resources/

appears to be unconcerned by this matter

“Quebec couple battles corporate giant and wins  Canwest News Service 
 
A former Quebec couple has scored a key legal victory for cellphone customers after a judge ruled they were duped into signing three-year contracts with Telus Mobility Inc. with a misleading promotion.Son Le-Tien and Thi Nguyen broke their contracts with Rogers and signed up with Telus after a 2004 promotion promised a free trip for two to a choice of 25 international cities. After discovering not all was as advertised from promotions partner Free Air fare, the Montreal-area couple tried to cancel their contracts.Telus retailer Contact Com DL Communications of Laval, Que., slapped them with penalties totalled of $1,794.72; all Telus contracts stipulate customers must pay $20 per month in penalty fees for every month remaining on a broken contract.When the couple refused to pay, the retailer handed the file over to a collection agency.The couple sued the Telus retailer in small claims court, and just won a key victory that industry watchers say should send a message to wireless phone companies about misleading promotions and about their billing practices.The couple signed up with Telus after they confirmed Sydney, Australia was part of the promotions package put together by the local Telus dealer. But when they tracked down an official with the travel company working out of an apartment building, they were informed Sydney and Asian cities were off limits. In her decision, Micheline Sasseville of the Quebec Court awarded the couple an additional $2,000, “given the seriousness of the violations” and the attitude of the defendant, who ” appears to be unconcerned by this matter.Technology consultant and telecommunication experts Jesse Hirsch says this response speaks volumes about the attitude of the cellphone industry. The outcome of the lawsuit, however, should be a wake-up call to them, he said.”There are so many Canadians who don’t understand the contracts they sign with their wireless providers and the marketing that leads them to sign them is misleading. But people don’t have the time, money and courage to fight back,” said Hirsch.”It shows that when people fight back, they win, but what a hassle.”

Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce law at the University of Ottawa added: “The bigger issue here is it places the spotlight on these long-term contracts, which are becoming enormously problematic . . . It may embolden other consumers to similarly take action in this instance.”” 
 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 
Sadly this practice of false, misleading adverting is too often had even been done by some Internet service providers who also were, are  appears to be “unconcerned by this matter” and due to the millions of consumer involved the governments themselves should firstly step in, regulate and enforce the matters.. not the courts.
do see also
http://postedat.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/and-i-used-to-think-that-politicians-were-big-liars/
 
do see also https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/apple-mr-jobs-has-admitted-privacy-invasion-iphone/

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.