bellsucksbigtime
@akn.ca
| Bell Canada sued by independent dealers
I guess Bell is tired of pissing off its customers and is now try to piss off it's business partners ... We are witnessing the implosion of Bell Canada ...
»www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet···ess/home |
|
Angelo_
The Network Guy
Premium
join:2002-06-18 | its a start  |
|
R0CKY
TSI Rocky
Premium,VIP
join:2005-05-19
Chatham, ON | reply to bellsucksbigtime
Ouch! |
|
milnoc
join:2001-03-05
H3B
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to bellsucksbigtime
I find Bell so untrustworthy these days that I don't even want to consider them as a potential distributor for my future TV channel. The channel is suppose to be distributed for free to all subscribers, but I'm worried Bell will start charging them through the nose for the channel and keep all the cash. |
|
daboom
join:2001-12-16
Oshawa, ON | reply to bellsucksbigtime
Doesn't surprise me at all I hope more do the same. |
|
Candoo3
join:2005-01-24 | reply to bellsucksbigtime
I don't know how anyone, including the CRTC with the upcoming decision, could find any credability or integrity with this company anymore. |
|
drjp81
join:2006-01-09
canada | Like my dad used to say, some people are so out of their minds, that the only way to get them to snap out of it is a swift kick in the a$$.
May this be "the one".
--
Cheers! |
|
Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
·Colbanet
1 edit | reply to bellsucksbigtime
The lawsuits claim over $200-million in damages, demand that Bell honour its current agreements, and seek the right to sell products from competitors like Telus, Rogers and new entrants in the mobile-phone business. Sorry, if you want to put the "Bell" name on your store, there's no way you should be selling competitors products. Bell stores are presented to customers as being Bell, and for an Espace Bell to want to sell Rogers services is stupid.
If that's the sort of thing the dealers think, that Bell stores should be allowed to sell Rogers products, then I can't help but wonder if the rest of their lawsuit has merit. |
|
Candoo3
join:2005-01-24
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | From the drift of the article, it would seem that Bell isn't honouring it's contracts with their indy sellers. I would tend to think that the indies must be on commission sales. Tied exclusively to Bell, it becomes a little bit hard to put food in your mouth, when the hand that feeds you, is giving it away to someone else. Perhaps what they have in mind, is that IF [they can PROVE] BELL has broken the terms of their contracts, the indies can escape from under Bell's thumb, less the Bell sign, to be more competitive. |
|
oh LOOK
@videotron.ca
| reply to bellsucksbigtime
»www.p2pnet.net/story/17361
I spotted it here, it has a bit more info on it.
[snip...]
The association makes three allegations »»»
1. The company has ignored a commitment finalized in March 2008 to leave dealers’ fees and commissions untouched until June 2009. Bell is now refusing to pay compensation to dealers when their customers purchase replacement equipment and renew service contracts, as well as reducing other new customer commissions during the critical fourth quarter of the year. These fees are the essential lifeblood of dealers’ ongoing operations.
2. Bell continues to develop better, more lucrative customer incentives with its non-exclusive retailers - store operators like Wireless Wave, Cabine Téléphonqiue, Best Buy and Future Shop - to the detriment of its own exclusive dealers’ competitiveness, and in contravention of their existing contract with the company.
3. Bell’s Direct Marketing has and continues to offer better incentives and deals to customers than its existing dealer chain - further eroding the dealers’ competitiveness and customer loyalty to their stores.
As well as claiming more than $200 million in damages against Bell, together with a a reversal of all competitive measures listed in the suit and a commitment to honour the current contract, ICDAC is demanding the right for the dealers to stock and sell products from the likes of Telus, Rogers and other, new entrants to the telecommunications marketplace in Canada.
[snip...]
We believe that senior executives at Bell stand to gain huge personal bonuses when the takeover succeeds, if certain financial targets are met,” said Umbrio.
“And what better way to improve your bottom line than by illegally cutting dealers’ commissions and fees, and firing thousands of employees, which they’ve done over the last few months. It’s hard not to connect the dots.”
Continued at »www.p2pnet.net/story/17361
Yeeehaaaaw  |
|
nanook
Premium,MVM
join:2007-12-02
·Bell Sympatico
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to bellsucksbigtime
Dealers sue BCE for breach of contract quote:
BCE Inc, Canada's biggest phone company, was slapped with a C$200 million ($164 million) lawsuit from its independent dealers in Quebec and Ontario on Tuesday, with the dealers claiming BCE engaged in "abusive, arbitrary" tactics and broke contract agreements.
Identical lawsuits, launched in Ontario and Quebec, claim that the country's biggest telephone company breached a March 2008 contract in which it agreed to leave dealers' fees and commissions untouched until June 2009.
The suit also claims that BCE's operating unit, Bell Canada, continues to develop better relationships and more lucrative customer incentives with nonexclusive retailers and that its direct marketing plan offers better incentives, cutting into the dealers' ability to compete...
This suit is by BellER Mobility's dealers. When is CAIP going to step up to the plate and do the same thing to BellER Sympatico? |
|
CanadianIron
join:2006-10-08
Beverly Hills, CA
| reply to bellsucksbigtime
This is a good strategy by Bell because the court case will take much longer and the deal will be over by the time anything comes of it.
Of course all of these allegations seem to be true and Bell has broken their own contracts, but they have good reason as it will help their bottom line.
Obviously a company that would do this has serious lack of ethics in upper management.
|
|
BryceS
join:2007-09-17
Waterloo, ON
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz  :The lawsuits claim over $200-million in damages, demand that Bell honour its current agreements, and seek the right to sell products from competitors like Telus, Rogers and new entrants in the mobile-phone business. Sorry, if you want to put the "Bell" name on your store, there's no way you should be selling competitors products. Bell stores are presented to customers as being Bell, and for an Espace Bell to want to sell Rogers services is stupid. If that's the sort of thing the dealers think, that Bell stores should be allowed to sell Rogers products, then I can't help but wonder if the rest of their lawsuit has merit. Not all Bell Distribution Inc. Dealers sell under the Bell World name.
eg. Bob's Cellular |
|
matradley
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Ontario | reply to bellsucksbigtime
Here's CBC's article -> »www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008···ell.html |
|
eots
join:2003-02-04
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| I love these 2 quotes from the article:
"Once we sign a contract, we expect that contract to be honoured, but instead, year over year, they make changes to it without our agreement," said CDAC vice-president Rick Umbrio.
"All we're asking is for Bell to honour their commitments and agreements. We want to be able to negotiate with Bell, put something in writing and they honour it, not change it on the fly."
Sound familiar? They don't honour contracts with their own customers or 3rd party ISP's either and make significant changes anytime they feel like it without notice. This is the same behaviour that triggered the CRTC complaints, so it's about time they got sued for it. I hope Bell loses! . |
|
Sempronius
join:2008-09-18
Toronto, ON
| reply to milnoc
said by milnoc :I find Bell so untrustworthy these days that I don't even want to consider them as a potential distributor for my future TV channel. The channel is suppose to be distributed for free to all subscribers, but I'm worried Bell will start charging them through the nose for the channel and keep all the cash. You have every reason to be concern. Bell is 3x more expensive than the competitor and Bell's only concern is how deeply she can dig into the pocket book of her subscriber's and how large a bank account she can acquire. Here's one less customer Bell will not be getting money from all in a few short days... |
|
Sempronius
join:2008-09-18
Toronto, ON
| reply to eots
said by eots :Sound familiar? They don't honour contracts with their own customers or 3rd party ISP's either and make significant changes anytime they feel like it without notice. . Hence the very reason why both Bell and Rogers did away with written agreements a number of years back and strictly went to oral agreements, for their own benefit of being able to change the oral agreements to their liking and the customer has nothing to fall back on. It's your word against Bell and Rogers. At least with signed written contracts it's a legal and binding committment signed by both parties. |
|
eots
join:2003-02-04
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| There are written agreements between Bell and 3rd party DSL ISP's and not merely a verbal agreement and a handshake, but that still didn't stop Bell from changing the rules when they implemented the throttling without notification. Bell contracts are obviously not worth the paper they're written on. |
|
riojew04532
@cia.com
| The issue of throttling is not mentioned in any GAS tariff contract. Bell's case is that it (dpi/throttling) falls within the permitted network management parameters of the GAS service, and is therefore not in violation of the contract. There is no specific mention in it of common carriage rules, dpi, throttling, CALEA, etc. |
|
eots
join:2003-02-04
·TekSavvy Solutions..
4 edits | It was the underhanded way that Bell implemented throttling on all 3rd party DSL ISP's that started this in the first place and there most definitely are comments about traffic management in the CRTC submissions as it relates to GAS and how it volates the telecomunications act.
I only hope the dealer suit against Bell is successful and it sets a precidence for additional law suits by other companies who deal with Bell. |
|
