TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- TOTA Mobile/Wireless/Celluar/VOIP Thread
Pages (83): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 »
Also, worth commenting, though my reception from Bell (Solo = Bell) doesnt appear to be as good in Toronto as it did w/ Rogers (I only got 1 bar in many parts of TO, 2 at the most I think I noted), while Rogers I always had 3 or 4 everywhere),
it does appear that reception up here in Collingwood and area is better with Bell. Essentially the same # of bars everywhere here, save for when I'm in my basement... I get 2 bars w/ Bell (Solo) sometimes, at the worst 1!
With Rogers I only ever got 1 and often has "No Service" displayed on my cellphone at times...
So Bell's definitely winning out here in Collingwood reception-wise. EVERYONE it seems when ppl are over has problems getting reception in my damn basement... can't believe I'm not!! Awesome! ^5
Not that Rogers's reception up here (even in my basement), nor Bell's reception in Toronto, was something I would complain about, but just thought I'd comment on the strengths/weaknesses of both in these different locations. 
i use to be with bell mobility. i had a contract with them and then signd another after the 1st expired but shortly after cancelled it. i hate bell mobility, their phonesm plans and service suck. it was a hassle tryna deal with customer service and trying to mget a plan that met my needs and they are real sneaky and coneiving about the bills and how they charge you. id advise anyone to not go with bell.
im thinking telus now i guess.
I have now been on hold with Rogers for 1 hour and 27 mins because they cut off my cell phone for no apparent reason (bills are paid, contract still has another year on it). 
WTF!! My home phone is going to run out of battery before I ever get through!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Jem_hadar Wanted to add unlimited mobile browser ($5/month) and something else to my plan to try out, see what I thought, esp especially for the Java Gamil app, which looks VERY swanky and nice (for a phone access to email), esp compared to the mobile HTML version... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rabbitjoker I would call and confirm the gmail app is included on the mobile browser. Bell's unlimited mobile browser just covers WAP (might be different with Solo - but check to make sure). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Jem_hadar get a data plan |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rabbitjoker AFAIK: data plan != mobile browser. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rabbitjoker AFAIK: data plan != mobile browser. |
Anyone know if this a good phone? I like how it looks.
LG KE770 Shine
http://www.sntradersonline.com/phon...oduct_id=snp551
or this...
Sony Ericsson S500i
http://www.sntradersonline.com/phon...oduct_id=snp580
That Sony dont look half bad... pretty fucking cool actually (and I HATE the look of all those SE phones! Seriously... I'm not saying their bad phones, they're great... bat life, speakers, mp3s, etc. etc.) but i just really dislike the way they look form wise on the outside, and the way their menus etc look....
but that phone looks bad ass.
i know nothing of LGs save that apparently their piles of shit... but that LG looks pretty fucking STEAKSAUCE i must say! A1! ^5
EDIT:
http://www.sonyericsson.com/spg.jsp?cc=my&lc=en&ver=4000&template=pip5&zone=pp&pid=10854
^^ go check out the commercial for it!! SO COOL!! Best/coolest cellphone commercial maybe I've ever seen. Love it... so mystical and magical!!
I've just been sold on this SE phone... wow. 
Canadians okay to sue over cell access fee
and another small step forward for the consumer..
quote:
Canadians okay to sue over cell access fee
Controversial practice has generated billions from customer charges
September 19, 2007
Chris Sorensen
Tyler Hamilton
Business Reporters
A class-action lawsuit accusing Canada's big cellphone companies of gouging customers with an unfair "system access'' fee has been certified by a Saskatchewan court, refocusing the spotlight on long-standing and controversial practice that has generated billions for the industry.
The suit, which targets an estimated $12 billion (plus interest) in customer charges collected over the years, is described as the country's largest-ever class action, since every cellphone user in Canada � roughly half the population � is potentially affected.
"It's gigantic in terms of people, and that makes it gigantic in terms of dollars," said Tony Merchant, the lawyer who initiated the suit in 2004. But experts note a class-action certification does not mean the case is deemed to have merit.
At issue is whether Canada's cellphone providers have misled monthly subscribers by implying that so-called "system access" or "licensing" fees are somehow required by federal regulators. Rogers Wireless and Telus Mobility each charge their subscribers access fees of $6.95 a month, while Bell Mobility recently raised its access fees by $2 to $8.95 a month.
An investigation by the Toronto Star three years ago revealed that, at the time, the industry was to collect about $800 million annually from the controversial fees.
The amount is likely now in the neighbourhood of $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion, according to Merchant, who said the Star story was what sparked the suit.
The investigation also revealed that many customer service agents employed by the various cellphone companies were incorrectly telling subscribers the fee was a mandatory government charge collected on behalf of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
Such a charge, while it was required two decades ago when the cellphone industry was just getting started, no longer exists. The fee, however, is still being collected.
Merchant said it morphed over time and has now become a valuable marketing tool, allowing the cellphone companies to advertise product prices for much lower than what customers actually see on their bills.
The carriers developed a "dependency on this charge early on," said Merchant. "But you can't say to a person who comes in to buy a radio that it will be $100, and then take an extra $10 when they open their wallet on the pretense that it's something special and separate."
The suit claims the cellphone companies are guilty of "unjust enrichment" � meaning they received money to which they had no legal entitlement.
The carriers defend the continued existence of the system access fee, arguing the money goes toward paying for their licenses and purchasing wireless spectrum, as well as maintaining and upgrading of their expensive wireless networks.
Marc Choma, a spokesperson for the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association, said each carrier has its own definition of what the fee is used for.
But critics say such expenses are simply the costs of doing business and should be reflected in the carriers' monthly rates.
"It's a front-end marketing play to advertise the lowest possible price and get you in the door," said Carmi Levy, senior vice-president of strategic consulting at AR Communications Inc.
"It's a very calculated process of confusing the customer to get them to pony-up an additional amount of money, both upfront and on a monthly basis."
Levy speculated that one of the reasons the wireless industry manages to get away with the tactic is because there is relatively little competition between the three big carriers. "Because there are no alternatives, consumers have just gotten used to grinning and bearing it."
Faced with complaints, Industry Canada put in place new rules three years ago that prohibited the wireless companies from calling the fees a government charge, even though a small portion of it goes toward paying for spectrum licenses.
The suit names Bell Mobility Inc., Telus Corp., Rogers Wireless Inc. and their various subsidiaries, as well as several other smaller, regional players. Spokespeople for Bell and Telus said yesterday the case has no merit. Rogers said it would appeal the certification.
Merchant said he expects an appeal, a process that could take about six months.
"One of the exciting results, assuming we succeed on appeal, is that we get to access the documents of all these companies. Having been told by numerous people within the industry that they were told this was a tax, we expect there will be a gold mine of information there."
It would be a dramatic reversal from last summer, when the Saskatchewan court denied the certification on grounds that the case did not have a suitable plaintiff or litigation plan. The cellphone companies hailed that ruling as a major victory, but Justice Frank Gerein left the door open for Merchant to renew his application � which he did, successfully.
About 7,500 people are registered for the class action. Merchant said he is surprised investors and analysts in the sector are not following the issue more closely, given the "huge" financial consequences.
Michael Geist, an Internet and technology law professor from the University of Ottawa, said there's a good chance the cellphone carriers will consider settling the matter instead of letting it go to trial, considering the magnitude of the financial damages at stake.
"The cost of engaging in long-term litigation is very expensive as well, so once you reach the class stage, it certainly increases the likelihood of some kind of settlement," said Geist, who calls the system access fee "one of these eternal frustrations" for Canadians.
Michael Janigan, executive director and general counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in Ottawa, said it is time to take a closer look at the problem.
"If it takes a class action to curb these kinds of practices, so be it," he said. "You can find parallels in other industries where fees are creeping up that have no particular merit, aside from padding the sellers' pocket."
The Competition Bureau has looked into the issue, but according to a recent filing by Rogers it has been dismissed. A spokesperson for the bureau would not comment.
source:
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/258049
fuck yeah, always thought this was a major bullshit tactic...
" ... its to upgrade the network... " sure sure sure, I still get dropped calls.
http://www.merchantlaw.com/cellular.html
Join the class-action using the above link.
chances are they are not going to win.
Some people when renewing their Fido contracts have been able to get the "system access fee" dropped.
I was checking out the similar "enviro fee" charge that they add onto your bill at the oil change places like Great Canadian Oil Change. It's not a provincial tax or fee (here in BC anyway), they kind of mislead people into thinking it's some kind of tax that goes to the government (such as for tires where the gov reaaly does have a fee), but it's just another corporate money grab.
Same thing with the cell companies, I have been told by sales reps that it was a government fee but they were wrong. It's pure profit.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tvmann Some people when renewing their Fido contracts have been able to get the "system access fee" dropped. I was checking out the similar "enviro fee" charge that they add onto your bill at the oil change places like Great Canadian Oil Change. It's not a provincial tax or fee (here in BC anyway), they kind of mislead people into thinking it's some kind of tax that goes to the government (such as for tires where the gov reaaly does have a fee), but it's just another corporate money grab. Same thing with the cell companies, I have been told by sales reps that it was a government fee but they were wrong. It's pure profit. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by monishb http://www.telusmobility.com/about/...fairs/saf.shtml System Access Fee The System Access Fee covers a number of costs, including: spectrum acquisition and licensing charges, contribution charges to help subsidize residential telephone service in rural and remote areas, costs associated with area code changes, invoicing requirements for special needs clients, relay services (TDD) and related costs. The remainder, if any, goes towards the costs of operating TELUS Mobility�s national wireless networks, including new equipment and installations, ongoing maintenance and technology upgrades. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by dEsidEL sounds like the cost of doing business to me. why not just drop the fee and jack up all the plans by $6.95 rather than coming off as trying to mislead consumers? |
I just got the new SE w580i from Rogers and was so annoyed with all the crap they stuffed it with that i decided to debrand it myself. Successfully. So up yours Rogers! 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by dEsidEL sounds like the cost of doing business to me. why not just drop the fee and jack up all the plans by $6.95 rather than coming off as trying to mislead consumers? |
Cell Phones May Cause Hearing Loss
WebMD) Long-time mobile phone users who talk more than an hour a day on the devices may be may be more likely to have high-frequency hearing loss, researchers say.
"Our intention is not to scare the public," says Naresh K. Panda, MS, DNB, chairman of the department of ear, nose, and throat at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh, India, and researcher for the study. B The study, he tells WebMD, is preliminary and small. "We need to study a larger number of patients."
He presented the findings Wednesday at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery in Washington.
His team found that people who had talked on cell phones for more than four years and those who talked more than an hour daily were more likely to have these high-frequency losses. These losses can make it difficult to hear consonants such as s, f, t and z, making it hard to understand words.
But another hearing expert familiar with the study says there is as yet no cause for alarm.
Hearing Loss Study
Panda and his colleagues evaluated 100 people, aged 18 to 45, who had used mobile phones for at least a year, dividing them into three groups according to length of use. One group of 35 had used phones for one to two years; another group of 35 had used them for two to four years, and a group of 30 had used them for more than four years.
"We asked them if they had been using the phones less than 60 minutes or more than 60 minutes per day," Panda tells WebMD. They compared the phone users with 50 people who had never used cell phones and served as a control group. The study was conducted in India.
Those who used the mobile phones for more than four years had more hearing loss in high-frequency ranges in their right ear, the ear most held the phone to, than those who used the mobile phone for one to two years.
"When we compared high-frequency thresholds (the level at which the sound is first detected) between the one- to two-year [users] and more than four years; there was a significant difference in the thresholds between these two groups," he says.
One- to two-year users had a 16.48 decibel loss in the high-frequency range, he says, while those who used the phones more than four years had a 24.54 decibel loss.
That decrease in hearing over a relatively brief period may not be noticeable to mobile phone users but would be of concern to a hearing expert, says Andy Vermiglio, AuD, a research audiologist at House Ear Institute in Los Angeles.
Mobile phone users who had symptoms such as a warm sensation, fullness in the ears, or ringing were more likely to have the high-frequency hearing loss, Panda also says.
Long-term mobile phone use may result in inner ear damage, Panda speculates. And symptoms such as ear warmth or fullness could be early warning signs of that damage.
Second Opinion
The research is too preliminary to warrant alarm, says Chester Griffiths, MD, chairman of the surgery department atB Santa Monica -- UCLA Medical Center and Orthopaedic Hospital and assistant clinical professor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California Los Angeles. He was not involved in the study but reviewed the findings for WebMD.
"Based on this study, I would not advise any change at the point, but I would caution people if they have any symptoms to stop using a cell phone or to reduce use."
Cell Phone Industry Responds
Joe Farren, a spokesman for CTIA -- the Wireless Association, the industry organization for the cellular industry, tells WebMD he has not reviewed the new study closely so he can't comment directly on the findings.
But he tells WebMD that previous research has not found a link between cell phone use and harmful health effects.
"There have been numerous studies conducted around te globe that have been peer-reviewed and published in leading scientific journals that show no association between wireless usage and adverse health effects," Farren says.
The subjects in the Indian study used GSM mobile phones. Farren says U.S. mobile phone users have phones that use the GSM platform but also other platforms.
Panda plans to continue his research. Meanwhile, his advice to preserve hearing: "Use cell phones when absolutely necessary."
Source:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007...in3277734.shtml
Not sure if it was posted before, but anyway: for existing Rogers wireless customers, you can call retention department and get a lot better deal on your cell plan than you have right now.
Sample: 250 daytime minutes
Unlimited wknights/wkends from 6pm-8am
125 Outgoing text msgs
Voicemail
CID
Call waiting/forwarding/3way calling
Rogers to Rogers
Free Motorola KRZR phone
$31.01 all fees/taxes included.
Source: http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/...ad.php?t=111887
Almost 12000 posts, more than million views. Good luck
PS, make sure to read few pages before calling Rogers.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by exraver Not sure if it was posted before, but anyway: for existing Rogers wireless customers, you can call retention department and get a lot better deal on your cell plan than you have right now. Sample: 250 daytime minutes Unlimited wknights/wkends from 6pm-8am 125 Outgoing text msgs Voicemail CID Call waiting/forwarding/3way calling Rogers to Rogers Free Motorola KRZR phone $31.01 all fees/taxes included. Source: http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/...ad.php?t=111887 Almost 12000 posts, more than million views. Good luck PS, make sure to read few pages before calling Rogers. |
I'm gonna do it in next few days, will post results.
PS, some ppl even got better deals, follow link.
Another example of how we get ripped off here in Canada:
iPhone delayed in France due to unlocking laws?
Posted Oct 6th 2007 10:46AM by Nilay Patel
Filed under: Cellphones
We're not exactly up on our French, let alone our French telecommunications law, but we're hearing that Apple's supposed launch of the iPhone in that country is being held up by two different regulations that prevent the iPhone from being the locked down revenue-generating machine Apple wants it to be. The first, a law passed in 1998, requires that carriers unlock any phone upon customer request -- for a fee during the first six months of a contract and for free after that. Notably, all three major French carriers -- including Orange, which was supposed to get the iPhone -- have lost lawsuits challenging this law. The second, which we're slightly less clear on, apparently requires carriers to sell both locked and unlocked phones. Tensions over the regulations have apparently strained the relationship between the companies to the point where Orange spokespeople are saying things like "the risk we're evaluating this week is that Apple crosses France off," but really, who expected Apples and Oranges to mix without someone getting a little bruised?
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.