| reply to milnoc
Re: CRTC Hearing - Day 6 - The Last Day One important point that MUST be driven home on Monday:
»www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpInt_Perf.page
quote:
Consistently fast service that's never shared
Congestion CANNOT exist on a service that is "never shared". Since both claims are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE by definition, Bell MUST BE GUILTY of either lying in its CRTC filings about congestion or false advertising. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6
3 edits | said by InvalidError:One important point that MUST be driven home on Monday: » www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpInt_Perf.page quote:
Consistently fast service that's never shared
Congestion CANNOT exist on a service that is "never shared". Since both claims are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE by definition, Bell MUST BE GUILTY of either lying in its CRTC filings about congestion or false advertising. .
False Ads ? - NO, not Bell ! [/sarcasm]
But quite right, they cannot both be true.
That advertising Hook was originally stated during the days of the 'Download Rigor-Mortis' TV ads, when Bell was poking fun at Rogers' neighbourhood distribution topology. |
|
| said by Davesnothere:That advertising Hook was originally stated during the days of the 'Download Rigor-Mortis' TV ads, when Bell was poking fun at Rogers' neighbourhood distribution topology. All cable internet, not just Rogers', share the same 'wire' between households though.
In any case, Bell's advertisement claim of "never shared" falls apart at the DSLAMs where dozens, hundreds or even thousands of circuits get aggregated into DS3/OCxxx/GbE/10GbE links so it never was more than a half-truth to begin with. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | said by InvalidError:In any case, Bell's advertisement claim of "never shared" falls apart at the DSLAMs where dozens, hundreds or even thousands of circuits get aggregated into DS3/OCxxx/GbE/10GbE links so it never was more than a half-truth to begin with. All true, but Bell milked the term well.... |
|
 mazhurgPremium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
 ·MTS
| reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:One important point that MUST be driven home on Monday: » www.bell.ca/shopping/PrsShpInt_Perf.page quote:
Consistently fast service that's never shared
Congestion CANNOT exist on a service that is "never shared". Since both claims are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE by definition, Bell MUST BE GUILTY of either lying in its CRTC filings about congestion or false advertising. Not false, misleading;
Full text:
Consistently fast service that's never shared1. Notice the one... One looks up for it further down the page is linked to »www.bell.ca/shopping/popups/pers···formance
"1Applies 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."
Which simply indicate that the user is on a unique wire to the CO. Grossly misleading, but true.
--
"Vision without funds....
is a hallucination" |
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
jfmezeiPremium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:22 Reviews:
·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. |
|
| 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.  |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6
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]
 |
|
grunze510
join:2009-02-14
Cote Saint-Luc, QC
kudos:1
1 edit | Upon reflection, I do not wish to post. Take me back! |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6
2 edits | Quick, erase your post !
They might be reading !
EDIT : Now even I forgot what you posted - Was it about Bell ? |
|
| 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. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | 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 ! |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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 |
|
