elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30
Toronto, ON | reply to milnoc
Re: Bell Canada sued by independent dealers
What category is your future channel?
If its a must carry, they can't charge people to watch it. |
|
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 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 |
|
HiVolt
29
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
clubs:
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Bell Sympatico
| 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! |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| 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. |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
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.  |
|
infamouskid
join:2007-01-24
North York, ON | there is no direct translation.
but to me it can be used as shit! or fuck! |
|
