jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
 ·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to milnoc
Re: CRTC Hearing - Day 6 - The Last Day
>Now that the housekeeping is done, what are the chances the Union des
>Consommateurs will cover all the critical points of traffic management
>that we don't have any trouble discussing on this very forum
The Union's academic expert supported Bell's claims that having 10 TCP sessions allowed one user to use 10 times as much bandwidth as one who has only TCP 1 session. So my hopes are not high.
However, they may be good in terms of the false advertising issue of ISPs advertising speeds that they cannot provide. |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| reply to InvalidError
>»www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpInt_Perf.page
>
> quote:Consistently fast service that's never shared
You forgot the reference to the certain conditions apply:
1 Applies to the access between the customer's modem and switching equipment from Bell. Speeds may vary with your technical configuration, Internet traffic, server or other factors.
So it isn't "false advertising", it is misleading advertising. Bell had to add those caveats last years during the CAIP propceeding when they started to claim that we were causing congestion on sympatico customers or that a small group of users were ruining the whole internet. |
|
milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H3B
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei  :The Union's academic expert supported Bell's claims that having 10 TCP sessions allowed one user to use 10 times as much bandwidth as one who has only TCP 1 session. So my hopes are not high. If that were true, then I should be using twice as much bandwidth at work (two lines) than I do at home (one line).
But that ain't what's happening, even with the BitTorrent server up and running.
I might have to respond to the CRTC after the hearings are over. I really didn't like how things went this week. I'm starting to wonder if I should have made my own oral presentation. The only problem is that if I said what I wanted to say, I'd probably be sued for slander by now. |
|
MaynardKrebs
Premium
join:2009-06-17
| reply to jfmezei
said by jfmezei :So it isn't "false advertising", it is misleading advertising. Bell had to add those caveats last years during the CAIP propceeding when they started to claim that we were causing congestion on sympatico customers or that a small group of users were ruining the whole internet. My 'net habits are adversely affecting 'net users in Italy and Patagonia. How cool is that? Good thing Bell has their backs covered.  |
|
Davesnothere
join:2009-06-15
2 edits | Fine Print, My A%$ !
Although Bell's weasel, er, I mean legal team has determined that it is OK from a purely legal perspective to banish the important part of the details to 'Fine Print Land', as far as I'm concerned, when you do it to deliberately deceive your OWN customers, it should still legally be called 'False' advertising rather than 'Misleading'.
Sort of how there is First and Second degree murder, maybe we could call the charge 'False Advertising, Second Degree', or something.
Come to think of it, since it was deliberate and premeditated, the charge should read 'First Degree' !
Those clowns are walking a fine line, and trying to split every hair that they can, regarding stuff like this, and Lord knows, I haven't many left to split ! [Dave runs hand over shiney head]
Shame on Bell !
As a corporation, they haven't learned a thing over the years, about fair and honest business practices.
(Actually, chances are the HAVE learned, but keep the knowledge to themselves.)
[/rant, for now]
 |
|
nigrunze
join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC
1 edit | Upon reflection, I do not wish to post. Take me back! |
|
Davesnothere
join:2009-06-15
2 edits | Quick, erase your post !
They might be reading !
EDIT : Now even I forgot what you posted - Was it about Bell ? |
|
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03
·TekSavvy Solutions..
 ·Videotron
| reply to jfmezei
Re: CRTC Hearing - Day 6 - The Last Day
said by jfmezei :So it isn't "false advertising", it is misleading advertising. Bell had to add those caveats last years during the CAIP propceeding when they started to claim that we were causing congestion on sympatico customers or that a small group of users were ruining the whole internet. If you state something in large lettering on your advertisements and then use fine print to state that your advertising claims are hollow, void, misleading or otherwise inaccurate/wrong, it feels a lot more like false advertising than misleading advertising since the advertisement itself states in the fine print that the marketing claim is a bold face lie.
At least, Quebec consumers who get tricked into a contract by misleading/false advertising may soon be able to walk out of such contracts much more easily when the next set of Consumer Protection Act amendments get through:
quote:
Penal clauses
Bill 60 amends section 13 of the CPA to clearly provide that penal clauses (i.e., stipulations requiring consumers to pay costs other than interest accrued upon non-performance of an obligation) are prohibited. The current version of section 13 had been interpreted by Quebec courts to allow the use of penal clauses in consumer contracts. Bill 60 therefore amends section 13 of the CPA to restore the original legislative intent by prohibiting penal clauses. The current and amended versions of section 13 do not apply to credit contracts.
This amendment will effectively BAN termination fees in Quebec and render long-term service contracts ineffective as anticompetitive lock-in tools. |
|
Davesnothere
join:2009-06-15
| said by InvalidError :At least, Quebec consumers who get tricked into a contract by misleading/false advertising may soon be able to walk out of such contracts much more easily when the next set of Consumer Protection Act amendments get through: This amendment will effectively BAN termination fees in Quebec and render long-term service contracts ineffective as anticompetitive lock-in tools. .
And who said that Quebec wasn't progressive ?
Mayhaps it's time I moved back to there ! |
|
chronoss2009
join:2008-09-23
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError :said by mazhurg :Which simply indicate that the user is on a unique wire to the CO. Grossly misleading, but true. We need EU-style advertisement and consumer protection laws to stop companies from making barely-legal or misleading claims. On the plus side, Quebec's revised consumer act proposes to explicitly BAN penalties beyond interests for "non-performance" by the customer which could spell the end of termination fees. This will make walking out of contracts people got tricked into by misleading advertising much easier and cheaper. can you give me a link i want to show this law and or proposal to the pirate party and green party as well as the ndp party, this would really be nice to see country wide if true. |
|
InvalidError
join:2008-02-03
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·Videotron
| said by chronoss2009 :can you give me a link i want to show this law and or proposal to the pirate party and green party as well as the ndp party, this would really be nice to see country wide if true. I haven't found a link straight from the government about it but here's a summary from one of Canada's leading law firms:
»www.blakes.com/english/view.asp?ID=3248 |
|
N Terloper
@bell.ca
| reply to jfmezei
panem et circenses
said by jfmezei :... However, they may be good in terms of the false advertising issue of ISPs advertising speeds that they cannot provide. Unfortunately, corporate truth-shading, misdirection and outright lying has become so pervasive that people expect to be lied to and just shrug their shoulders in response. For example, where's the mass anger response to the financial meltdown and have any laws with teeth regarding accountability been passed since then?
Short of the ignition of some sort of revolutionary fire under the arses of a public easily distracted by shiny objects, I'm not optimistic about this angle. |
|
chronoss2009
join:2008-09-23
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to milnoc
Re: CRTC Hearing - Day 6 - The Last Day
ya mean like how for the last 1.5 years i've had 640 Kbytes download speed and then they screw around cause a disconnect then the tech comes over and tells me they have to put me on a 4 megabit profile cause someone one in area got THERE BELL SYMPATICO? so now i have 540 kilobytes and yet am paying TSI for 5? |
|
nigrunze
join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC
1 edit | said by chronoss2009 :Ya mean like how for the last 1.5 years I've had 640 Kbytes download speed and then they screw around causing disconnects then the tech comes over and tells me they have to put me on a 4 megabit profile 'cause someone one in area got THEIR BELL SYMPATICO? So now I have 540 kilobytes and yet I am paying TSI for 5? You're getting 540KB/s download speeds. You pay for a 5Mbit/s connection. You're getting what TSI sold you. 5000/800 internet. That's not a 4Mbit profile. |
|
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada
clubs:
| reply to milnoc
Well the internet is always shared at some point. A properly managed network wouldnt allow for congestion to happen at all. This would mean guarenteed dedicated lines. Which is expensive.
What you MUST do in these cases is simply oversell what you can provide. Most markets do this. Take airlines for example. They have 100 seats on the plane. They sell 110 tickets. Why? To make more money and because they know 10 people just wont show up to fly.
What happens when 102 people show up to fly? I'm sorry sir, you got bumped off the plane. Here take these vouchers, new ticket, free hotel stay. ETC ETC. In other words their miscalculation results in the customer getting upto several hundred dollars for being inconvenienced.
What happens when I'm downloading something and it gets congested because too many people were there using the service? I'm sorry sir but you see this long cylindrically shaped thing; now bend over; we are going to punish you for using what you paid for. |
|
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada
clubs:
| reply to chronoss2009
said by chronoss2009 :ya mean like how for the last 1.5 years i've had 640 Kbytes download speed and then they screw around cause a disconnect then the tech comes over and tells me they have to put me on a 4 megabit profile cause someone one in area got THERE BELL SYMPATICO? so now i have 540 kilobytes and yet am paying TSI for 5? 540 kb/s * 8 = 4320 kbits/s
Add in OVERHEAD.
»sd.wareonearth.com/~phil/net/overhead/
You are pretty much getting 5mbit without a doubt. Lucky you. I get 1.7mbit |
|
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada
clubs:
| reply to milnoc
Also in this thread.
It's MISLEADING ADVERTISING and NOT FALSE ADVERTISING.
I'm sorry to point out but in the law. Misleading advertising is the same as false advertising by definition.
False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising. As advertising has the potential to persuade people into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid, many governments around the world use regulations to control false, deceptive or misleading advertising. |
|
Davesnothere
join:2009-06-15
| said by munky99999 :Also in this thread. It's MISLEADING ADVERTISING and NOT FALSE ADVERTISING. I'm sorry to point out but in the law. Misleading advertising is the same as false advertising by definition. False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising. As advertising has the potential to persuade people into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid, many governments around the world use regulations to control false, deceptive or misleading advertising. .
Many of us here would be very pleased if you are right about this.
I wholeheartedly agree with your quote.
Do you by chance happen to know the section of legislation of Canadian or provincial law which states or even paraphrases what you just quoted ?
Thanks in advance.
 |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC
·ELECTRONICBOX
| Guys, Bell has 10 thousand lawyers who make sure that their advertising is (just barely) legal. They know exactly how far they can go with their misleading statements.
But, but complaining to the CRTC that the advertsiing doesn't show the real picture (instead of complaining about false advertising), then the CRTC might make include this in its recommendations.
Thus was one of my statements in my presentations, that ISPs should be forced to divulge the sustainable speeds they can support instead of , or along with the burstable "up to" speeds.
YOu want to do VoIP ? then choose one who can sustain at least 128kbps. And if the ISP next door can support double that, then you chosoe that one because you have less chance of congestion. |
|
jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Beaconsfield, QC | As of today, my feeling is that the CRTC is now seeking suggestions on how to proceed on this.
Find some way to let ISPs decide how to manage their traffic without allowing them to break the telecom act. |
|
