infamouskid
join:2007-01-24
North York, ON | reply to An_Onymous
Re: Bell Canada sued by independent dealers
there is no direct translation.
but to me it can be used as shit! or fuck! |
|
An_Onymous
@teksavvy.com
| reply to nanook
>There seem to be at least 5 types of retailers who sell BellER phones:
>3. non-BW but exclusively-BellER, e.g. BAKA
»www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=baka
baka
2. In Japanese, it means something along the term of "idiot" or "fool" In Tagalog (australian-filipino language), it means "cow".
Poor choice of naming a company in the internet age. Someone really need to do google search before registering a business website.
May be Bell has looked up the meaning and is treating them accordingly.  |
|
pnjunction
Teksavvy Premium
Premium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to bellsucksbigtime
The part that screams unfair to me is that the retailers that aren't exclusive get better deals.
I guess Bell figures they need to be more competitive in stores where people walk in and look at the products side by side, whereas in a Bell-only store they figure they've got you when you walk in. Doesn't make it fair (what's the point of the exclusive agreement?), par for the course for Bell these days though. |
|
elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30
Toronto, ON | reply to milnoc
I know, I work for a Cat2 broadcaster, and am well aware of the hassles they need to through for carriage |
|
nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to koreyb
said by koreyb  :I think this is more directed for stores like Telephone booth etc. There seem to be at least 5 types of retailers who sell BellER phones:
1. Bell World, BellER-owned
2. Bell World, privately-owned
3. non-BW but exclusively-BellER, e.g. BAKA
4. independent, non-exclusive, e.g. Telephone Booth
5. independent, non-exclusive, not dedicated to wireless, e.g. Future Shop.
Presumably the terms and conditions between BellER and each of these varies. For example, BAKA's store fronts have a lot of BM signage which presumably BellER pays for in exchange for exclusivity. Presumably that tradeoff is set out in the contracts between them and so BellER would probably be justified to object if suddenly BAKA stores started to sell Rogers phones.
OTOH, since outfits like Telephone Booth are clearly not exclusively BellER dealers, BellER has no grounds to object if they want to sell non-BellER phones. |
|
koreyb
join:2005-01-08
Etobicoke, ON
 ·Primus Talkbroadband
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :The lawsuits claim over $200-million in damages, demand that Bell honour its current agreements, and seek the right to sell products from competitors like Telus, Rogers and new entrants in the mobile-phone business. Sorry, if you want to put the "Bell" name on your store, there's no way you should be selling competitors products. Bell stores are presented to customers as being Bell, and for an Espace Bell to want to sell Rogers services is stupid. If that's the sort of thing the dealers think, that Bell stores should be allowed to sell Rogers products, then I can't help but wonder if the rest of their lawsuit has merit. I think this is more directed for stores like Telephone booth etc. |
|
mr_hexen
join:2007-08-02
Brampton, ON
| reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues :said by eots :I love these 2 quotes from the article: "Once we sign a contract, we expect that contract to be honoured, but instead, year over year, they make changes to it without our agreement," said CDAC vice-president Rick Umbrio.
"All we're asking is for Bell to honour their commitments and agreements. We want to be able to negotiate with Bell, put something in writing and they honour it, not change it on the fly."Sound familiar? They don't honour contracts with their own customers or 3rd party ISP's either and make significant changes anytime they feel like it without notice. This is the same behaviour that triggered the CRTC complaints, so it's about time they got sued for it. I hope Bell loses! . Bell has lots of money, they'll just drag the litigation on and on and on, till the plaintiffs run out of money, then go after them for costs
duh, they throttled indie commissions because there was congestion in their bank accounts.
If the CRTC can't see Bell for what they truely are these days then they should be dismantled.
Bell breaks contracts left and right. There is a clear message to how they plan to do business.
right now I bet the teachers are asking themselves "What the heck did we get ourselves into here?" LOL. |
|
milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H3B
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues :What category is your future channel? If its a must carry, they can't charge people to watch it. It's a Category 2 Digital. The channel will be called The Canadian Public ®, and will become Canada's first national public access television channel. There are no "must carry" provisions for a Cat. 2 license; I have to negotiate carriage with each and every distributor. |
|
HiVolt
30
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
clubs:
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues :Bell has lots of money, they'll just drag the litigation on and on and on, till the plaintiffs run out of money, then go after them for costs People's perception of Bell is getting more negative. I have witnessed people talking about how bad of a company Bell has become, from the throttling fiasco, the incoming messages charges, the dishonest people on the phone who just want to sign you up for contracts and upsell service, etc, etc, etc...
And most of those people weren't the techy kind that hang around these forums, but ordinary folks...
--
GO LEAFS GO! |
|
elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30
Toronto, ON
| reply to eots
said by eots :I love these 2 quotes from the article: "Once we sign a contract, we expect that contract to be honoured, but instead, year over year, they make changes to it without our agreement," said CDAC vice-president Rick Umbrio.
"All we're asking is for Bell to honour their commitments and agreements. We want to be able to negotiate with Bell, put something in writing and they honour it, not change it on the fly."Sound familiar? They don't honour contracts with their own customers or 3rd party ISP's either and make significant changes anytime they feel like it without notice. This is the same behaviour that triggered the CRTC complaints, so it's about time they got sued for it. I hope Bell loses! . Bell has lots of money, they'll just drag the litigation on and on and on, till the plaintiffs run out of money, then go after them for costs |
|
elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30
Toronto, ON | reply to nanook
It's Bell(ER) Internet now  |
|
elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30
Toronto, ON | reply to milnoc
What category is your future channel?
If its a must carry, they can't charge people to watch it. |
|
eots
join:2003-02-04
·TekSavvy Solutions..
4 edits | reply to riojew04532
It was the underhanded way that Bell implemented throttling on all 3rd party DSL ISP's that started this in the first place and there most definitely are comments about traffic management in the CRTC submissions as it relates to GAS and how it volates the telecomunications act.
I only hope the dealer suit against Bell is successful and it sets a precidence for additional law suits by other companies who deal with Bell. |
|
riojew04532
@cia.com
| reply to eots
The issue of throttling is not mentioned in any GAS tariff contract. Bell's case is that it (dpi/throttling) falls within the permitted network management parameters of the GAS service, and is therefore not in violation of the contract. There is no specific mention in it of common carriage rules, dpi, throttling, CALEA, etc. |
|
eots
join:2003-02-04
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to Sempronius
There are written agreements between Bell and 3rd party DSL ISP's and not merely a verbal agreement and a handshake, but that still didn't stop Bell from changing the rules when they implemented the throttling without notification. Bell contracts are obviously not worth the paper they're written on. |
|
Sempronius
join:2008-09-18
Toronto, ON
| reply to eots
said by eots :Sound familiar? They don't honour contracts with their own customers or 3rd party ISP's either and make significant changes anytime they feel like it without notice. . Hence the very reason why both Bell and Rogers did away with written agreements a number of years back and strictly went to oral agreements, for their own benefit of being able to change the oral agreements to their liking and the customer has nothing to fall back on. It's your word against Bell and Rogers. At least with signed written contracts it's a legal and binding committment signed by both parties. |
|
Sempronius
join:2008-09-18
Toronto, ON
| reply to milnoc
said by milnoc :I find Bell so untrustworthy these days that I don't even want to consider them as a potential distributor for my future TV channel. The channel is suppose to be distributed for free to all subscribers, but I'm worried Bell will start charging them through the nose for the channel and keep all the cash. You have every reason to be concern. Bell is 3x more expensive than the competitor and Bell's only concern is how deeply she can dig into the pocket book of her subscriber's and how large a bank account she can acquire. Here's one less customer Bell will not be getting money from all in a few short days... |
|
eots
join:2003-02-04
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to matradley
I love these 2 quotes from the article:
"Once we sign a contract, we expect that contract to be honoured, but instead, year over year, they make changes to it without our agreement," said CDAC vice-president Rick Umbrio.
"All we're asking is for Bell to honour their commitments and agreements. We want to be able to negotiate with Bell, put something in writing and they honour it, not change it on the fly."
Sound familiar? They don't honour contracts with their own customers or 3rd party ISP's either and make significant changes anytime they feel like it without notice. This is the same behaviour that triggered the CRTC complaints, so it's about time they got sued for it. I hope Bell loses! . |
|
matradley
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Ontario | reply to bellsucksbigtime
Here's CBC's article -> »www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008···ell.html |
|
BryceS
join:2007-09-17
Waterloo, ON
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz :The lawsuits claim over $200-million in damages, demand that Bell honour its current agreements, and seek the right to sell products from competitors like Telus, Rogers and new entrants in the mobile-phone business. Sorry, if you want to put the "Bell" name on your store, there's no way you should be selling competitors products. Bell stores are presented to customers as being Bell, and for an Espace Bell to want to sell Rogers services is stupid. If that's the sort of thing the dealers think, that Bell stores should be allowed to sell Rogers products, then I can't help but wonder if the rest of their lawsuit has merit. Not all Bell Distribution Inc. Dealers sell under the Bell World name.
eg. Bob's Cellular |
|
