dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
788

looky here
@videotron.ca

looky here

Anon

Ontario Finally Get's It's Own Wireless Consumer Protection Reg

Ontario Dialing Up New Consumer Protections
»news.ontario.ca/mcs/en/2 ··· ons.html

and

Ontario enacts protection for wireless customers
»www.thestar.com/business ··· ers.html

Aside from the press releases I haven't really looked at this new consumer protection reg. Anyone have an actual link to it?

Anything different than the wireless code? Anything contradictory?

One thing I notice is the word "CONSENT". Something Bell and Telus doesn't want you to have.

Any other links on this?

I get the feeling the word "CONSENT" is going to clash with the feeble CRTC wireless code.
stormy13
join:2003-10-28
Pickering, ON

stormy13

Member

»www.ontla.on.ca/web/bill ··· lID=2781

looky here
@videotron.ca

looky here to looky here

Anon

to looky here
Gov of Ontario stuff

Your rights when signing a wireless service contract
»www.ontario.ca/consumers ··· contract

[Law link] Wireless Services Agreements Act, 2013, S.O. 2013, CHAPTER 8 Consolidation Period: From April 1, 2014 to the e-Laws currency date.
»www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/htm ··· 08_e.htm

Seems to have come into force April 1st. Was this a Gov of Ontario April fools joke??
yyzlhr
join:2012-09-03
Scarborough, ON

yyzlhr to looky here

Member

to looky here
I only skimmed through this. I don't see anything here that isn't already covered by the national code. In fact this might actually be worse, it looks like carriers would be able to charge some sort of ECF even if you're not on contract.

What's interesting is that those who are in violation of the legislation can serve up to two years in prison. I can't fathom how an individual would ever be liable to that kind of penalty.

looky here
@videotron.ca

looky here

Anon

said by yyzlhr:

I only skimmed through this. I don't see anything here that isn't already covered by the national code.

I do.
During the creation of the wireless code, Telus argued, and got, the right to make "minor" amendments to contracts w/o the need for consent, or the need for consent.

"Minor" was never really defined.

This Ontario reg requires EXPLICIT CONSENT to changes, even minor from what I see so that Bell and Telus can't pull the wool over peoples eyes.

There are significant differences. Guess you just don't see them. And they are not worse, as you are stating, but for the better. At least this part is. I haven't finished reading it yet...

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

1 recommendation

Davesnothere to looky here

Premium Member

to looky here
 
Is this for real ?

Every time I read a headline which seems unbelievabubble today, I keep thinking that it's still April 1st, y'know....
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

Canadians “would be best served by a single set of regulations, not today’s patchwork of provincial laws, regulations, guidelines and interpretation bulletins,” said CWTA president and CEO Bernard Lord.

He urged the commission to adopt a code that “supersedes any current or future provincial legislation in this area.”

“Every layer of regulation you add, adds cost. And eventually that cost is paid by someone and that someone usually ends being the consumer,” he said.


Look for a new line item on you monthly bill - one line for each province that's enacted its own consumer protection law......

Your Monthly Bell Service Cost $90.00
Ontario Consumer Protection Fee $3.00
Quebec Consumer Protection Fee $6.00 ($3 x two languages)
Alberta Consumer Protection Fee $3.00
Monthly sub-total $102.00
More Shit We Felt Like Charging You $20.00
Bibic Suit Replacement Fee $2,000.00 (Armani ain't cheap)
Total Before Tax $2,122.00
HST $275.86
Total Due $2,397.86

looky here
@videotron.ca

looky here

Anon

Yeah... CTWA... they are the ones who wanted only "self regulation" and not even the lawless watered down wireless code.

What the CWTA is actually urging is the prevention of real consumer protection laws that actually has some teeth.

Bet we see more of the CWTA rhetoric over the week, and maybe even some type of filing.

Also, what Ontario just did was kick the Harper gov in the nuts. The Harper Gov has big money tied up in their TV commercials about this wireless code that's spamming the airwaves about how they are on the peoples side with the code. Ontario just gave Harper a face-push and said ours is the law, not yours.

A fight is going to happen. Love it.

Would love to see all the diff provincial reg's tabulated side-by-side with the wireless code to see how they all differ and which is really the best.

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium Member
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in

elwoodblues to looky here

Premium Member

to looky here
One of the more interesting provisions is they have to tell you the cost of the contract upfront.

People are finally going to realize free phones are not free at all.

TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON

1 recommendation

TypeS

Member

Even then, for many the big selling point will be "paying $0 upfront" for the phone, or some the "reduced" price from signing the contract.

That's the consumerism culture we have, buy stuff before we can afford it.

I have to wait for my bus to work every morning infront of an Easy Home rent-to-own place and I always see all the displays they have and advertising to lure people in. They even have sign "while you wait for your busy, come in and see what you can have delivered today for $0 down." I routinely see the delivery truck making runs around my neighborhood. I don't know why people go with these places, you pay way, way above 21% interest.

Just how people are, they want something now instead of saving up for something and paying in cash/interac.

You can make all the consumer protection laws you want to and have all the information about the cost of the contracts given to the customer, some will sign anyway because of "free/cheap" phone.

looky here
@videotron.ca

looky here to elwoodblues

Anon

to elwoodblues
The stink here is that the legislation has teeth. Where-as the wireless code does not.

It gives people recourse with the law on their side.

As is, Rogers already ignores the CCTS and the issues brought up under the wireless code. CCTS even stated Rogers ignores them in their last annual report.

With this legislation if Rogers ignores anything the fines and the damages awarded can be upwards of $200K.

Teeth versus CCTS /CRTC/industry lip-flapping.

I'll take something with teeth, TYVM.

The industry group, the CWTA, doesn't like this...
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

Yep, get 1000 independent people each with the same issue with Rogers (using them as my whipping boy today), and get them to file a complaint.

The first 100 complainers will get Rogers fined $100 each = $10,000
The next 250 complainers will get Rogers fined $500 each = $125,000
The next 250 complainers will get Rogers fined $1,000 each = $250,000
The next 300 complainers will get Rogers fined $10,000 each = $3,000,000

Finally some judge is going to lay into Rogers with a vengeance - the last 100 complainers each extract a $250,000 fine x 100 = $25MM

I just hope that when they do prosecute these sonsofbitches that there's a complete database of type of issue, number, date, and fine levied, so the Crown can really stick it to them.

With the type of shit the incumbents pull, it could only take a week or two to hit those kinds of numbers for each incumbent. That's what really has the incumbents scared.

looky here
@videotron.ca

looky here

Anon

Well, that's it as well.

CRTC has complaints is the thousands. How many are for the same thing?

A court isn't going to allow the same thing over and over again. Nor is it hidden like it is with the CCTS, and only an example given once a year.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

2 recommendations

sbrook to looky here

Mod

to looky here
The problem with all these "fines" is that they'll only result in a new below the lines "regulatory recovery fee" ... i.e. you, the customers, are going to pay through the nose for complaining about us.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by sbrook:

The problem with all these "fines" is that they'll only result in a new below the lines "regulatory recovery fee" ... i.e. you, the customers, are going to pay through the nose for complaining about us.

 
Sad, yet accurate.

looky here
@videotron.ca

looky here to sbrook

Anon

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

The problem with all these "fines" is that they'll only result in a new below the lines "regulatory recovery fee" ... i.e. you, the customers, are going to pay through the nose for complaining about us.

Well if both the CRTC and the CCTS allows the same thing to continue over and over again, something is broken. No?

In addition, the CCTS, when enforcing the wireless code, will *not* enforce the full extent of the contractual section, and will even toss a complaint for certain contractual section violations.

Again, something is broken. No?

People are lazy by nature, the CCTS is likely the fastest and easiest route that people will run to. However, this legislation gives people who want to fight a leg to stand on.

This leg to stand on doesn't sit will with the wireless industry, even if it only represents a very small fraction of the people. It sets precedence.

Davesnothere
Change is NOT Necessarily Progress
Premium Member
join:2009-06-15
Canada

Davesnothere

Premium Member

said by looky here :

Well if both the CRTC and the CCTS allows the same thing to continue over and over again, something is broken. No? ....

 
Same reply as directly above.
Davesnothere

Davesnothere to looky here

Premium Member

to looky here
said by looky here :

The stink here is that the legislation has teeth.

Where-as the wireless code does not.

It gives people recourse with the law on their side.

As is, Rogers already ignores the CCTS and the issues brought up under the wireless code. CCTS even stated Rogers ignores them in their last annual report.

With this legislation if Rogers ignores anything the fines and the damages awarded can be upwards of $200K.

Teeth versus CCTS /CRTC/industry lip-flapping.

I'll take something with teeth, TYVM.

The industry group, the CWTA, doesn't like this...

 
About time, then !

Looks good on 'em !

And this must be fashioned after some Quebec consumer protection laws, I would say.

looky here
@videotron.ca

looky here

Anon

It doesn't matter what prov has what consumer protections. Let's all be honest here, if Manitoba, PEI, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec all enact their own Wireless consumer protections then something with the CRTC, CCTS and the toothless wireless code is broken and the law makers know it.

Prov is irrelevant.. to me. What matters is the tools these law makers are giving their people.

It's quite obvious that Ontario see's failure in the CRTC, the CCTS and the wireless code to bring this out after the fact.

Obviously the situation is one where people need more and better protection than what the CRTC, CCTS, and the toothless and watered down wireless code offers.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

The problem here is one of jurisdiction.

Consumer protection is in the hands of the provinces.
Comms is in the hands of the feds.

Where do you go if it's a matter of comms and consumer protection.

That said, I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the province's consumer protection laws ... as it is they rarely prosecute in the building or auto trade where they have such laws.
MaynardKrebs
We did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17

MaynardKrebs

Premium Member

Maybe Bell & Rogers will retaliate and pull out of Ontario.
One can only hope.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Pigs might fly too!
stormy13
join:2003-10-28
Pickering, ON
Asus RT-AC66U B1

stormy13

Member

Click for full size

looky here
@videotron.ca

looky here to sbrook

Anon

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

The problem here is one of jurisdiction.

Consumer protection is in the hands of the provinces.
Comms is in the hands of the feds.

Where do you go if it's a matter of comms and consumer protection.

From what I gather, the CWTA is trying to say everything, advertizing included, is Fed jurisdiction. Right down to any deceiving marketing.

While comms may be Fed, other parts are not.

Also, the CCTS or even the CRTC are not the means that ends all. The courts are. They are really more or less like a tribunal or ombudsman. Even the code states this does not trump the persons right to recourse in court. The CRTC/CCTS are just a thing that exists to make life easier on people who are seeking quick resolution, and meant to be low cost to the ISP's.

For example let's look at the Bell data mining, which is illistrated (in my opinion) rather well on the CRTC website/file on this.

1. Bell changes contractual conditions. You no longer have any privacy in your communications
2. Consumer files at the CCTS. Heeey they changed the contract on me. This isn't what I bought.
3. Bell files back, "Privacy. CCTS is not allowed to regulate anything contractually in regards to privacy or privacy changes to a contract".
4. CCTS states. File dismissed. Bell is right. Consumer is a loser. So sad, too bad.

The provincial code now kicks in. Sad to say, but contractual changes like this are not allowed. Up to the consumer to pursue it.

Court is to decide the outcome. Not Bell. Not the CWTA (who hates consumers). Not the CCTS, who tossed it due to the toothless and weak wireless code. Not the CRTC.

BTW, the above actually happened.

They are complimentary to each other, I find. Not contradictory.

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

The CCTS only ever decides whether the companies are treating their customers according to the terms of service at the time. Not whether the terms themselves are fair.

If you go to the CRTC, they'll say "We don't deal with the day to day operation and business of comms providers", contact Department of Industry Competition Bureau, who say Telecomms ... contact the CRTC, or your province consumer protection people.

So you are left with the courts ... the courts also take the approach "Comms - talk to the CRTC since it's the quasi judiciary body in charge of comms"

Finally if you go to the province until recently they toss it back to the CRTC.

Now in Ontario, the province's consumer folks have been given direction ... but they have direction for anti fraud in the car repair industry and the building trades, but rarely does the province actually bare its teeth.

So, the reality is nothing is really "complementary" ... they toss the ball around to each other and nobody has the guts do do anything,. And as I said, sadly the day anyone does something with a fine, the fine will just get passed along to the consumer. So consumer pays.
LondonOntGuy
join:2004-05-12
London, ON

LondonOntGuy to TypeS

Member

to TypeS
said by TypeS:

I have to wait for my bus to work every morning infront of an Easy Home rent-to-own place and I always see all the displays they have and advertising to lure people in. They even have sign "while you wait for your busy, come in and see what you can have delivered today for $0 down." I routinely see the delivery truck making runs around my neighborhood. I don't know why people go with these places, you pay way, way above 21% interest.

Dundas & Third right? Easyhome is the devil.

But back to the topic at hand, this will be useless for those on pay-as-you-go, whose users are really going to get screwed (even more than now) once this comes into full effect.