| SaskTel: How much is 800Meg worth? $10,668.38 Grampa hit with $10,600 bill for streaming movies
»cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012···901.html
He pleaded his case to his wireless provider, SaskTel, which was sympathetic to the predicament faced by a grandfather looking to occupy some bored children.
His final bill was knocked down to a still sizable $1,000.
Sasktel has also just filed with the CRTC stating the wholesalers are getting access at too low of a cost, which is wrong. Well, according to SaskTel that is. |
|
 shanerPremium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB | Wait...this was while roaming in the USA. While the costs are outrageous, they are published on Sasktel's website and frankly, they are well within their rights to charge them. |
|
 HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:12
 ·TekSavvy DSL
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to oh LOOK
Still if they knock down the price from $10k to $1k, they are obviously not losing money on it, so its pure profit... The $1k is probably what they have to pay to the US provider, which is laughing all the way to the bank as is.
That's just disgusting.
--
GO LEAFS GO! |
|
|
|
| reply to oh LOOK
Although they may be within their rights to charge, if the margins are that great why would you not offer more competitive roaming rates? I shut off my phone when I travel. That means they aren't making money. If they charged a reasonable amount I would keep it on and they would keep making money. Seems like all these telecom companies only have roaming and UBB practices for cash and grab situations. The man is lucky he has a family willing to kick up a shit storm to get exposure. Otherwise he'd be out a good chunk of change.
Moral of the story: kick up a shit storm and out these guys as the crooks they are. Advocate, advocate, advocate. |
|
| reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:Still if they knock down the price from $10k to $1k, they are obviously not losing money on it, so its pure profit... The $1k is probably what they have to pay to the US provider, which is laughing all the way to the bank as is.
That's just disgusting.
This. |
|
shanerPremium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB | reply to YumYumHungry
said by YumYumHungry:Although they may be within their rights to charge, if the margins are that great why would you not offer more competitive roaming rates?
The short answer? Because they don't have to? Their only 'roaming' competition is TELUS and Rogers. And frankly, it's a niche market this USA roaming thing, so there's no incentive to be a price leader.
And Hivolt, they may have knocked the bill down to cost, or even below cost for all we know. The negative PR from a grandpa running up a $10,000 bill is worth more than that profit margin. Besides, they have other Sasktel users who pay the roaming charges to offset the loss.
--
I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.
»shaner38.blogspot.com/
|
|
| heh, I can't believe this guy is actually arguing here that $10,600 is the price for 800-meg. Or that even 1000$ is taking a hit for this poor poor government owned telco.
I wonder what would make him so sore and sensitive to this topic? |
|
HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:12 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to shaner
What's really sad is the lack of consumer protection laws... SaskTel (or whoever) can say on their website or agreement that the charge is $100/MB, or $100/minute... Does it make it legal or fair? There's often been discussion that a lot of the language and terms in user agreements is not really legal.
--
GO LEAFS GO! |
|
 LazManPremium
join:2003-03-26
canada | reply to oh LOOK
I don't know who Sasktel roams onto in the States; nor do I know what they get paid, but I do have a handle on some other Canadian players, and they do pay pretty stiffly to the terminating carrier...
Cutting from 10k to 1k probably involves a cost to Sasktel, in exchange for the good will/PR... I wouldn't be surprised if fully half of the 10k actually flowed through to the US terminating carrier. |
|
| Probably costs Sasktel about 3 cents or the same as it would cost in most of the cities around the world for roaming. |
|
| reply to oh LOOK
»www.engadget.com/2012/02/06/russ···ngry-cu/
Sasktel customers get a $10k bill
Megafon customers get prizes! |
|
| The winner would owe Sasktel around 4 and a quarter million dollars in overuse fees here in Canada. At some point in time this has to become a political issue in this country. |
|
 dillyhammerBack to TeksavvyPremium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Hamilton, ON
kudos:9
·Cogeco Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
·Caneris
 ·voip.ms
| said by Chuck sTruck :The winner would owe Sasktel around 4 and a quarter million dollars in overuse fees here in Canada. At some point in time this has to become a political issue in this country.
Technically, "Hell Freezes Over" is some point in time.
It certainly won't happen with any one of the currently available political parties in power.
Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil
»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare |
|
1 edit | reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:What's really sad is the lack of consumer protection laws... SaskTel (or whoever) can say on their website or agreement that the charge is $100/MB, or $100/minute... Does it make it legal or fair? There's often been discussion that a lot of the language and terms in user agreements is not really legal.
Read Kanitz v. Rogers for a real eye opener about user agreements. I have lost the link for the excerpts from the analysis quoted below but you should be able to find it via Google.
To the best of my knowledge, this decision has not been overruled by a higher court.
------------------------------------------
Kanitz v. Rogers, Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2002
The amendment clause
The amendment clause found in Rogers’ service agreement states that:
"Amendment. We may change, modify, add or remove portions of this Agreement at any time. We will notify
you of any changes to this Agreement by posting notice of such changes on the Rogers@Home web site, or
sending notice via email or postal mail. Your continued use of the Service following notice of such change
means that you agree to and accept the Agreement as amended. If you do not agree to any modification of this
Agreement, you must immediately stop using Rogers@Home and notify us that you are terminating this
Agreement.";
A clause like this strikes me as simply amazing. If it turns out that this kind of clause is widely accepted by the courts, I
encourage absolutely everyone that is in a favourable enough position to make the other party “agree” to it, to include
such a clause in their contracts. There really are no limits to the usefulness of a clause such as the one above. However, it
seems rather unlikely that anyone (be it businesses or consumers) would willingly make an informed decision to agree to
a contract, which the seller/provider could alter in any way it sees fit, at any time it sees fit, even without directly
informing the other party of the changes made. Thus, the fundamental issue of the actual value of a clause, as the one
used by Rogers, is directly dependent on the power balance between the parties. That is; only an uninformed party, or a
party with no other options would agree to be bound by a contract provision as the amendment clause used by Rogers.
The conclusion I draw from this, is that, a clause that no reasonable person would willingly make an informed decision to
agree to, must be seen as unjust and unenforceable; at the very least in cases of non-negotiated business to consumer
(B2C) agreements. Justice Nordheimer did not reach such a conclusion, and indeed, did not even discuss the
reasonableness of the clause in question.[13]
The issue of notification
The amendment clause stated that Rogers would notify the customers of changes made to the original agreement. This
could, in accordance with the clause, be done by “posting notice of such changes on the Rogers@Home web site, or
sending notice via email or postal mail”. As Nordheimer J choose not to discuss the reasonableness of the clause in
general, nor was the reasonableness or suitability of these forms of notification discussed. In fact, Nordheimer J happily
accepted that the only issue that should be taken into account in assessing whether notification took place, is whether the
notification was in a form provided for in the contract:
“While I accept that one can fairly assert that the defendant could have done more to highlight the fact that the
agreement had been amended, that is not the issue. The issue is whether there was notice given of the
amendments as contemplated by the terms of the user agreement.”[14]
This is a dangerous way of thinking and the danger of it can easily be illustrated by an absurd example of what could
have been included in the clause in question:
Notification can also be given by notes scribbled on any toilet door of Rogers Cables Inc’s staff toilets or by
messages called out from the rooftop of Rogers Cables Inc’s office facilities.
If this procedure for notification had been part of the clause, and Rogers had, for example, called out the changes from
their office facilities in accordance with the clause, would Rogers’ action then have constituted a valid notification?
Hopefully not, but it would indeed have met the requirements of Justice Nordheimer’s test (i.e. that the notification was
given as contemplated by the terms of the agreement). Although a ridiculous example, it illustrated the importance of
assessing the reasonableness of the forms of notification stipulated for in the contract. One simply cannot ignore that
step, as Justice Nordheimer chose to do. |
|
 KardinalDei Gratina ReginaPremium
join:2001-02-04
N of 49th
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to oh LOOK
Something to keep in mind is that roaming is a very profitable business for the network owner, as they are in the position to say "Oh, you want to use your phone from somewhere else on our network? Okay, here's the cost" and it's usually a very inflated rate compared to what they charge their own customers. Why? Because they can. It's just like long distance voice calls were 20 years ago -- you want to make the call, you pay for it.
If Sasktel knocked the price down by 90%, they're likely taking a bath on this just for the "good press" opportunity while their network partner still gets paid.
In this day an age, with all the stories like this one that have already happened, to blindly ignore the fact that your own behaviour could result in $1000s of dollars in charges is just being stupid. Kind-hearted to grandchildren, perhaps, but stupid.
--
All of us get lost in the darkness, dreams learn to steer by the stars
All of us do time in the gutter, dreamers turn to look at the cars
Join Team Helix
|
|
flafson
join:2003-10-04
Thornhill, ON | Just because they were willing to cut 9/10 of the bill doesn't mean it's pure profit.
If i were them, grandpa getting a 10k bill for wanting to stream is a very negative review on my business. I would go the extra mile to make it right. If i cut the whole thing, then i get into a problem where people know they can abuse my system. Get 10k bill and avoid paying any of it. Pretty sure most people would avoid it just because they don't even want to pay 1k (understandable)
So in their mind they made things somewhat alright and yet it won't trigger anymore problems from other users trying to abuse the system. |
|
| I bet Netflix isn't thrilled their name/logo was featured on such a negative news story.
It should have been SaskTel's name/logo there! |
|
 pnjunctionTeksavvy ExtremePremium
join:2008-01-24
Toronto, ON
kudos:1 | reply to oh LOOK
The companies all love these sky high rates because they all get in on this gotcha-style money grab. Sure they'll bend and give the people who whine to media a break, but behind the media spotlight they are raking in the charges day after day from unknowing or begrudgingly paying customers.
There isn't enough competition in the market for any of the big players to look at this as something to compete on. Their strategy seems to be that they all keep high rates and use marketing and exclusivity deals (on content and handsets) to snag their share of the market. |
|
| reply to flafson
said by flafson:So in their mind they made things somewhat alright and yet it won't trigger anymore problems from other users trying to abuse the system.
Abusing the system?
If anyone is "abusing" anything, SaskTel is the one being a vulture and abusing the people they service with rates like that for 800meg of usage. |
|
balur
join:2010-04-28
kudos:1 | While i think the bill is outrageous I have trouble feeling sympathy for the user in this case, you should know how much this will cost before using the product.
That being said there should be a text message when you start roaming telling you what the local rates will be. (of course if someone doesn't know what an MB is...) |
|
