Massive Canadian Class-Action Cellphone Suit Is Approved

BeanBunny writes "A Saskatchewan, Canada court has ruled that a $12 billion class-action suit can proceed. The suit alleges that 'system access fees' that the cellphone companies have charged ($7-9 per month) are unfair and constitute price gouging. 'It is described as the largest class-action in Canadian history, potentially affecting every cellphone user in the country. Currently, there are 7,500 complainants signed onto the suit.'"

Classic Bait & Switch

This is classic bait and switch tactics... Advertise one price, and then hit the customers with another. Their only real justification is that 'everyone else is doing it' and that not doing so would put them out of business. Its about time something like this came along.

Re:Classic Bait & Switch

This is classic bait and switch tactics...

Advertise one price, and then hit the customers with another. Their only real justification is that 'everyone else is doing it' and that not doing so would put them out of business. Its about time something like this came along.

There's one company that doesn't have additional fees, and it's part of their sales pitch.
I don't like to do free publicity, so I'll just say that company hasn't been deflowered nudge, nudge, wink wink, say no more.

Re:

Yeah, but Virgin's website makes stupid noises that I guess some people with no taste might call music. I'd pay the system access fee just to not have to listen to that garbage every time I want to check my account online.

Seriously, what kind of demente

Re:

Why should I have to do that? I want to view the content as intended. And if the intended way annoys me, I'll take my business elsewhere.

Re:

Bell is the worst of the lot. And the system access fee is just ONE of the fees Bell throws at you.

Try getting any bell services without paying for a landline. Go ahead...try...I'll wait. Want DSL from Bell without paying for a landline? Yeah, that'll be $

no-win

Assuming the lawsuit is successful, they'll just roll the $7 fee into the base price for ALL of their plans. So my $20/mo plan will become a $26.95/mo plan. Big whoop.

Wake me up when they stop charging $0.10 per SMS, or $0.05 per KB. I mean why is it they can afford me calling my friends after 6pm which uses roughly 9.6kbit/sec for FREE (well unlimited), but I can't send a 200 byte SMS without incurring a 10 cent charge no matter the time of day.

Cell phones are basically a license to print money. And since Rogers and Bell are basically monopolies they can charge [and do] whatever they want. If you look at Rogers previous earnings reports, the wireless division has been making tons of profit for a long time. So strictly speaking the high fees are NOT required to stay in business, they're just fucking greedy.

Re:no-win

Doncha know, this is what they call the miracle of an unregulated market? Why, you should be thanking Gawd Almighty that you're allowed to pay money to cell phone companies. To complain is Communistic.

Re:

SMS is a different protocol which requires a different infrastructure. The prices are high, but it's not just as easy as normal data transfer.

Re:no-win

SMS is a different protocol which requires a different infrastructure. The prices are high, but it's not just as easy as normal data transfer.

I've heard about this, but in my opinion, bandwidth is bandwidth. If a wireless provider is sending two signals, one of which has a throughput that is thousands of times the data rate of the other signal, yet the signal with the smaller amount of data costs them thousands of times more than the larger signal to send, they are doing something really wrong. Of course the thing that is really wrong about text messaging is not the technical implementation but the pricing, for which there is simply no excuse. It's price gouging, pure and simple, and the US providers are collectively guilty of it.

Re:no-win

That is BS. In GSM/UMTS networks at least, SMS messages are sent through the network via the MAP protocol and between the switch and mobile via DTAP. DTAP is required for any kind of mobile interaction and a provider must already have a MAP infrastructure in place to be able to handle practically any type of call.

The only additional piece of equipment required to handle SMS in a network is a SMS service center. All this is a database to receive SMS messages from an originating mobile and then send them back out to terminating mobile.

Using up bearer channels in their network for voice or data calls costs providers (both in dollars and in availability) far more than the simple signalling that SMS uses. There is no financial reason why a provider can provide unlimited voice calls but must charge $0.15 for an SMS message.

Re:no-win (for us)

There is no financial reason why a provider can provide unlimited voice calls but must charge $0.15 for an SMS message.

Yes, there is --- Profit!

Re:

Now whose fault is that? The phone companies. We're going to all charge each other money for these connections that don't really cost us anything. That way, we can charge our customers to "cover our costs". It's brilliant.

A rip-off is a rip-off wheth

Re:no-win

Assuming the lawsuit is successful, they'll just roll the $7 fee into the base price for ALL of their plans. So my $20/mo plan will become a $26.95/mo plan. Big whoop.

Maybe they will roll it in, maybe not. Thee is clearly an advantage in deceiving their customers, or they would not do it. If the current monthly cost is (for example) $30 (plus a fee of $7), how many fewer will sign up if the service is priced at $37/month? Clearly some will not sign up. Perhaps the companies will find it advantageous to charge something between $30 and $37/month.

In any case, I wonder how those 2 year contract (if that is typical in Canada like it is in the US) might come back to bite the providers if they have to keep providing service for the remainder of the contract, but MINUS the "access fees"?

Re:

They would probably just change the contract, which they are allowed to do, and then the consumers, if they are savvy. Problem is, most consumers don't: 1) thoroughly read everything that comes in their monthly bill 2) realize that the phone companies ca

Re:

My personal favorite absurd line-item in your phone bill has always been the small fee they charge you for the privelege of touch-tone dialing.

You couldn't opt out of it if you wanted, and the phone hardware is designed to work with those tones. It's not

Re:

What about long distance? Why do they still charge long distance rates in this day and age where you can access sites anywhere in the world via internet? They also these weird rules like if you're roaming in another city, and someone local calls you, you

Not for existing customers

Not for customers who already have $XX price for a plan. The price of the plan is fixed (unless you switch to a new plan), and would be grandfathered in with the contract, etc.

My captcha is parasite... how nice and fitting for a comment on a cellphone-rela

Re:

strictly speaking the high fees are NOT required to stay in business, they're just fucking greedy

No shit.

Everyone is greedy -- you, me, the companes -- that's how markets work. You're "greedy" in that you don't want to spend much money. Businesses are "gre

GOOD

"Assuming the lawsuit is successful, they'll just roll the $7 fee into the base price for ALL of their plans. So my $20/mo plan will become a $26.95/mo plan. Big whoop."

That is the idea yes.

Did you get the plan on price? You would not know your $20 plan co

So many charges...

I've always wondered about that fee. I remember when I first got a cell phone eons ago, when I signed up for a plan and the first bill did not jive with the plan. I didn't remember paying a large fee for my landline so I phoned them and got quite upset at

Ooh, Can we Down That Here in the USA?

That'd be nifty. I'm sure you could accuse them of price fixing, collusion and deceptive business practices at the very least. I bet there's a case to be made there, for 12 BILLION DOLLARS!

Sask. Only?

Don't suppose this is a Canada wide lawsuit? And if so how do I get in on it?

I've been with Clearnet/Telus for nearly 10 years and apparently been handing free money to them... Good Times...

The REAL question is....

.....where do I sign up? I'm all for free money back.

Normally I hate mass tort law.

Since it screws over the customers worse than the companies just to make the lawyers rich.

But in this case, these ripoff fees have been bugging me for 10 years, so I'm all for this on. If they roll in the fees with the normal rates, good, that's how they should do it.

Access fees...

I assume by 'access' they mean what occurs directly after you bend over and grab your ankles?

Anyway... We're at a time in this technology that is going to be a short-lived transition in the larger picture. Eventually prices for all cell phone service will

Doesn't Necessarily Affect Everyone

I'm on prepaid, only paying $10/mth+tax and nothing else. That's one of the reasons I picked prepaid to begin with; No system access fee, at least in Canada on Telus.

To sign up...

If you are Canadian, and have a canadian cell phone, Go to http://www.merchantlaw.com/cellular.html [merchantlaw.com] to sign up...

Deceptive.

It's deceptive. If I sign up for a $49/mo plan and incur no extra expenses (MMS, minutes, downloads) then why is my bill $63/mo give or take a few bucks? Why does it vary when I never have extra charges?

If the plan costs $63/mo then advertise it as that. Not $49/mo.

And then all these "free phone" deals. I keep asking them for that free phone, but they won't give it to me without money. The sign says "free phone." and it doesn't have an *. If it says free, then why can't I have it free?

I have a free phone you can have, just sign here. What did you sign? A contract for a variable monthly fee service which I can change the fee structure at any time and an agreement to pay $300 if you cancel. I reserve the right to increase your fee's at any time. And I can add $20 worth of monthly fee's if I feel like it with no recourse on your side.

Sucks. But they all do it.

Re:Just because I have to

You know, that would've been a lot more topical back when we weren't so close to parity.

Re:Just because I have to

1.00 CAD = 0.985699 USD Not even 1 and a half cents difference per dollar. And the way things are going, we'll be the ones making fun of the American dollar soon enough.

Re:

9 Canadian dollars = 8.775351 U.S. dollars

Re:

Actually, 8.86613 U.S dollars at the moment.

Re:

7 Canadian dollars = 6.825273 U.S. dollars [google.ca]

Re:Just because I have to

So thats what... $5, $6 American?

Currently just a few cents under parity. Wait a year and you may be looking at 1.25 greenbacks per loonie. As the trend has gone that way. We went from ~0.69 greenbacks per loonies to 0.98 greenbacks per loonie.

Re:

Yep, and Canadian products will become more "expensive" to Americans (therefore, less goods are sold). Additionally, US products will become cheaper for Canadians (therefore, more of our goods get sold to you)....

It doesn't matter. The point is: curr

Re:Just because I have to

> Yep, and Canadian products will become more "expensive" to Americans (therefore, less goods are sold). Additionally, US products will become cheaper for Canadians (therefore, more of our goods get sold to you)....

You seem to forget, we're your #1 supplier of petroleum products. You really don't have a choice if we raise prices to match domestic prices, since we supply the equivalent of 1 Katrina of oil, and there isn't enough slack in the world, never mind enough oil tankers, to make up the difference.

You *could* stop using up so much of it, which is what will probably happen as people stop over-spending and are unable to borrow against their home's declining values.

Re:

"You can never trust a Canadian. Someday, we'll be providing your natural resources" -Steven Page, Barenaked Ladies

Re:

"> You sell us oil? You're joking right?

> We sell *you* you're oil ... and beef ... and lumber ... Canada does oil swaps with the US. Rather than the US moving oil from the east coast to the west coast, and Canada moving oil from Alberta to the

Re:

The point is: currency values mean very little unless you trade them or are measuring inflation. Any more analysis is a discussion of macro-economic theory and world money supply. A topic best left to the economists.

Any instantaneous value doesn't mean mu

Re:

Over the last 8 years it's lost about 30%-50% of it's relative value against other western currencies. It happens to coincide with a strong Canadian economy which leads to the 50% gain the loonie has had over the greenback in the last year.

8 years also h

Re:

LOL.

Yeah, I can take a joke (picture an over-taxed Canuck getting his green card and exclaiming "I'm free, I'm free!").

Anyway, the Inuit crack is actually ironic: the vast, barren, Canadian north drove the manufacture and launching of the first TV sate

Re:Worthwhile Canadian Lawsuit

(picture an over-taxed Canuck getting his green card and exclaiming "I'm free, I'm free!")

... then was abruptly shot when his excitement startled a gun-toting American ;)

Re:

I see you voted for Bush.

A million Canadians

Glad to hear that. The polar bears seem to be running out of room up north. It's good to know they'lll have something to eat.

Re:

If the price is too high, it's called price gouging
If the price is too low, it's called predatory pricing
It the price is just the same, it's called price fixing

How convenient a system where anyone doing business is guilty :)

Relative to cost.

price > aggr

Re:Price control

Your comment is not interesting, despite what someone tagged it. It is instead an off topic comment that tries to change the focus from the real wrong to greed.

Price gouging is not illegal except in certain circumstnaces. I.E. It is price gouging only if there is some kind of emergency going on.

Same for predatory pricing. To be predatory pricing it must be an attempt to remove a smaller competitor and the bigger company must be taking a LOSS on the price.

Price fixing only occures when an actual agreement occures not to compete on price. ---------------- But all of that is crap, because the lawsuit is NOT about the price Yeah, the consumers want the lower price, but that is not what the legal action is about at all. This particular case should really be called false advertising. They advertise one price and then really charge you a higher one. That is wrong ALL the time. No if's, no and's, no buts.

Re:Not "Gouging" for a Wii either

""Price Gouging" is for life-essentials - like food, water, shelter. A cellphone plan isn't a life essential."

I agree. When I was selling Nintendo Wiis during Xmas for $450 people kept saying I was a price gouging sack of $%@*. Now I know it's not true

Re:Wrong!

I remember when I got my first cell phone around 1996, Clearnet at the time (now Telus), made it very, very clear that this was a government regulatory fee.

Re:Wrong!

Finally, it took a while to find a post like this, but this is the actual reason for the suit. I am one of the plaintiffs listed in the certification document and a few years ago i was called to a discovery meeting in toronto. i am happy to see this suit finally moving along. the $6.95 was described as a government lic. fee. it is not. the money all goes into the same pot as the other money they collect. they also have a witness from one of the cell phone co.s who was an employee and was told to mislead customers in the description of the so-called service fee. of course, the whole plan was to show a lower entry price.

Re:

I'm sure I'll never see a penny, but I signed up anyway just because I hope it will exert some pressure on the companies to be more honest. This isn't something they stopped doing years ago -- it's something they still do today.