dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3549
share rss forum feed


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to MrMazda86

Re: Bravo Distributel!

said by MrMazda86:

Not at all... I'm just pointing out some interesting fact. It's also an interesting fact that Distributel has a very bad reputation for a number of things, such as forcing customers to give them their banking information so that they can suck the money right out of their bank account each and every month, even after they've cancelled their service. I've seen this far too often.

Of course, you could decide to go on a monthly bill provided that you both have a sufficient credit rating and you pay for 6 months at a time. This is just one such example of the many things that Distributel does that they don't tell their customers about... or at least not up front anyway.

So as for "appearing better than TSI", that's got nothing to do with my gripe.

Forcing? No. You're a new member on the forums or a new account. Though i may be wrong, i cannot properly guess how long you've been a TSI customer, but there was a time where TSI ONLY accepted pre auth or credit card as well. "sucking" the money as you say out of the customers.

This isn't uncommon practice. In fact, i find this helps me with paying bills on time and not "forgetting" to pay them


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to MrMazda86

My comment wasn't about freebies but about customers feeling "thankful" for what they are given. I don't agree with this sentiment. Businesses should be grateful for their customers remaining their customers. My comment was only IF something was given to you for free should a customer be grateful, because now the business is doing something they do not need to do.


JohnDoe187

join:2013-01-04

It's the lack of competition in Canada that brain washes these zombies to believe they have it good... Sad really.


ftp1020

join:2007-01-30
Canada
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TSI Martin

said by TSI Martin:

Can't you just change your username bud.

Long time no talk... glad to see you are still dropping in.


Martin

Guys, those Bell stains don't wash out, y'know. No matter how much black you layer over top of it, there's still a faint blue mark. I have bank stains; they don't come out either.

As per this discussion: I *expect* my ISP to obey the law, and I *hope* (and only hope) they are proactive about things like privacy. I pay them money, however, to provide me with internet service.

So far, so good!

MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON
reply to Tx

said by Tx:

Forcing? No. You're a new member on the forums or a new account. Though i may be wrong, i cannot properly guess how long you've been a TSI customer, but there was a time where TSI ONLY accepted pre auth or credit card as well. "sucking" the money as you say out of the customers.

This isn't uncommon practice. In fact, i find this helps me with paying bills on time and not "forgetting" to pay them

If this is such a "common" practice, why is it that Distributel seems to be the *only* provider out there that requires this? Other providers either never have, or have done away with the whole forced pre-auth thing completely.

I do agree though that the pre-auth is a great way to not forget to pay your bill, but one must also take that with a caution because pre-auth is far too often abused, rather than being used for the "good" purpose in which it was intended.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

said by MrMazda86:

said by Tx:

Forcing? No. You're a new member on the forums or a new account. Though i may be wrong, i cannot properly guess how long you've been a TSI customer, but there was a time where TSI ONLY accepted pre auth or credit card as well. "sucking" the money as you say out of the customers.

This isn't uncommon practice. In fact, i find this helps me with paying bills on time and not "forgetting" to pay them

If this is such a "common" practice, why is it that Distributel seems to be the *only* provider out there that requires this? Other providers either never have, or have done away with the whole forced pre-auth thing completely.

I do agree though that the pre-auth is a great way to not forget to pay your bill, but one must also take that with a caution because pre-auth is far too often abused, rather than being used for the "good" purpose in which it was intended.

You need to broaden your scope a little. This is common practice among business in Canada. For example, my hydro bill is preauth. It's the only option we were given. My insurance is pre-auth, it's the only option we were given.

TSI rid of it because yes there were many complaints on some mistaken billing including myself as i was one of those back when Rocky was at the helm. Point is, just because distributel does it how is it even relevant to make them in to some bad guy for it? It's their form of payment. Some prefer not chasing customers.

People should be paying their bills, and it costs money to chase people. Some move away from it, some do not.

I pay my internet, cable, sirius sat among other bills with online banking, others like my hydro, insurance etc are pre-auth. Common-practice.

Though i will agree with you that i can be abused like bell has been known for taking money out they aren't entitled to, double payments and a fight to get the credit or their money back. PAP is good as long as it's a company who is good with billing.

Saying all of this, PAP is no different then handing your credit card info. Just because you haven't (assuming you haven't) doesn't mean no one else has, because trust me. A lot of TSI customers over the years from what i've seen pay their TSI bills this way.


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium,MVM
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..

said by Tx:

PAP is good as long as it's a company who is good with billing.

PaP is as good as the company is, as long as the company remains that way.

Frankly, I think it should be a criminal offense to require any PaP as a condition of doing business. Letting any company tap into your wealth at their discretion is Not A Good Thing [TM], ever.

Get a bill. Read your bill. If bill is good, pay the bill. If bill is bad, send it back, and no payment until a proper bill is presented.

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged

Jaxom

join:2012-03-10
East York, ON
reply to JohnDoe187

Boo hoo. A bunch of people who got caught pirating horrible movies and are now blaming Teksavvy for their own actions. Take responsibility kids. Your ISP shouldn't have to pay your legal fees for your actions.

Maybe next election don't vote for a party that made it easier for such frivolous copyright lawsuits to happen.


MrMazda86

join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

said by Jaxom:

Boo hoo. A bunch of people who got caught pirating horrible movies and are now blaming Teksavvy for their own actions. Take responsibility kids. Your ISP shouldn't have to pay your legal fees for your actions.

Maybe next election don't vote for a party that made it easier for such frivolous copyright lawsuits to happen.

Actually, in my case, that's not the case at all... It's a matter of principle and of standing up for the law. After all, FIPPA is supposed to protect the end consumer from certain breaches of privacy, however there are some trolls out there who feel that they are above the law.

Also, what you fail to take into account is that the alleged pirate often times did not actually commit any wrongful act. This is seen far too often when copyright trolls try to exploit a little ma & pa couple who know nothing about P2P or BitTorrent. What's more sickening than that is that an IP address may identify a subscriber by virtue of the name listed on the internet account, but this does not always identify the end user.

For example, where I'm currently residing now, if I were to unlawfully download something such as a movie, music, porn, or whatever, such a trolling company could in theory establish my IP address as being the "infringing IP", however when the word gets back to the provider, it's not me that will be identified because the service in this location is in my father's name. This type of situation is more common in residences which either have a shared living accommodation, or are otherwise not single dwelling units.

The problem comes in that there is no proof of who was physically on the other end of the computer to initiate the actual connection, and THAT'S what needs to be proven. Other cases include public wireless access, or cases where a person installs a wireless router (or worse yet, being given one by Rogers who uses NO security at all) and fails to secure it adequately. These cases are most often either Rogers customers who receive a modem/router combo unit that does not come with any encryption or instructions on how to access the web interface, or customers who are told by their provider that their "all in one" modem/router is secure. I've seen this far too often with my customers who have subscribed to internet from Hell Telecom (formerly Bell) where they are provided a 2-Wire 2701HG-G, which by default is secured with WEP.

There's a lot of factors to take into account when making these kinds of allegations, and ultimately the problem comes in where it becomes absolutely unreasonable to assume that the subscriber of the service as listed on the account is the end user. You can prove a link to a subscriber with an IP address, but not the end-user. This fact alone plays a big part in why such a trolling expedition violates a number of laws and needs to be stood up against. It's one thing if it's a single connection with only one computer for which only one person has access, but most often, this is just not the case.

It's not about blaming the provider, but rather about stopping these trolling expeditions and the manner in which they resemble a phishing scam for the sole purpose of extortion. THAT'S the issue... NOT the provider.


QuantumPimp

join:2012-02-19
Reviews:
·voip.ms

1 edit
reply to Jaxom

said by Jaxom:

Boo hoo. A bunch of people who got caught pirating horrible movies and are now blaming Teksavvy for their own actions. Take responsibility kids. Your ISP shouldn't have to pay your legal fees for your actions.

Perpetuating that stereotype is just plain mean spirited. Kinda like "He beats her because she deserves it". On the other hand you could feel some empathy for those who are being victimized. Your choice.

said by Jaxom:

Maybe next election don't vote for a party that made it easier for such frivolous copyright lawsuits to happen.

Is this truely what has happened? Yes, I know there were changes to the law but I thought the new laws reduced statutory damages for non-commecrial infringement. Seems like trolling could have happened regardless.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

1 edit

said by QuantumPimp:

said by Jaxom:

Boo hoo. A bunch of people who got caught pirating horrible movies and are now blaming Teksavvy for their own actions. Take responsibility kids. Your ISP shouldn't have to pay your legal fees for your actions.

Perpetuating that stereotype is just plain mean spirited. Kinda like "He beats her because she deserves it". On the other hand you could feel some empathy for those who are being victimized. Your choice.

said by Jaxom:

Maybe next election don't vote for a party that made it easier for such frivolous copyright lawsuits to happen.

Is this truely what has happened? Yes, I know there were changes to the law but I thought the new laws reduced statutory damages for non-commecrial infringement. Seems like trolling could have happened regardless.

I wouldn't try Quantum.
He only tries to spark argument all the time. Look at what was said as proof. You can't argue with people that has already condemned everyone accused, well because a copyright troll says they did it.

Not to mention, the argument isn't about ISP paying anyone's legal fee's. He's trying to spark argument, that's all so don't feed the troll
Expand your moderator at work