|
TOTA Mobile/Wireless/Celluar/VOIP Thread (pg. 49)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| AustralianGQ |
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. |
|
|
| loca |
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). :whip: :whip: :whip:
WTF!! My home phone is going to run out of battery before I ever get through! :whip: :whip: |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| 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... |
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). |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| 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). |
Hmm... I will enquire.
By default the phone blocks the java apps ability to install... restricts access... bell or solo does this w/ this phone.
u need to modify the phones settings inorder to access the app.
im not sure if they'll be have an answer for me, since "technically" im not even suppsoed to be able to use the java app on my phone.
other ppl on haward forums have changed the network access permission levels on their 6275i phones and have mentioned to make sure to get a data plan w/ bell before u go using it though (phone is only offered thru bell, solo, and 2 american counter parts i believe) ... so that tells me its likley covered.
But, its a good point nonetheless. Once I start using the app, I'm going to call solo a few days later and see if ive racked up any data charges.
if i do, then oh well, tells me i cant use the app and ill just cancell the data plan on my phone in genreal (i only want it if it allows me to check my gmail account via the java app! not via the mobile HTML version... dont like it. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jem_hadar
get a data plan |
AFAIK: data plan != mobile browser. |
|
|
| exstasie |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
AFAIK: data plan != mobile browser. |
I have unlimited mobile browser with Bell and so far I haven't been charged for anything I do while browsing.
I browse facebook all the time, and check my Gmail account. I also download tons of stuff (via WAP) and don't get charged for that.
I have one App that I use (Don't know what its call but its a Sports application through Sportsnet that allows me to check real-time sport scores and don't get charged for that either.
I keep trying to get the Gmail App but my phone doesn't support it! Go figure. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
AFAIK: data plan != mobile browser. |
OK... I guess 'officially' i have the "Unlimited Mobile Browser1" option... but I think it opperates like an unlimited data plan. Same diff with Bell and Solo AFAIK based on what I've read and discussed in Howard Forums...
and from what Jeff says above, seems like he confirms that. :)
I see what you mean though. The Gmail app dont dont use the mobile browser, so tahts the point ur trying ot make clear to me... I could be charged for data related to using the Gmail app online on my phone...
Looks like though I wont :) |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
That Sony dont look half bad... pretty ing 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 ... but that LG looks pretty ing 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. :disbelief :disbelief |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
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
|
|
|
| malek |
yeah, always thought this was a major bull tactic...
" ... its to upgrade the network... " sure sure sure, I still get dropped calls. |
|
|
|
|
