Charges for Incoming Text Messages

[Jorge Sanchez]

Bell, Telus face class action

July 28, 2008 at 2:20 PM EDT

MONTREAL — Two of Canada's cellphone giants face being served with another a class-action lawsuit in Quebec over plans to charge customers for incoming text messages.

A Montreal law firm is seeking class-action status for the second time in two weeks, this time against both Bell Mobility Inc. and Telus Communications Inc., on behalf of a Quebec man.

Eric Cormier, a Bell Mobility subscriber for the past decade, initiated the action, saying both companies are acting illegally by unilaterally changing the terms of cellular contracts with their clients.

Both cellphone companies have announced plans to charge customers 15 cents per incoming text message, with Bell introducing the charge on Aug. 8 and Telus on Aug. 24.

The law firm of Saint-Pierre Grenier filed a separate class action lawsuit against Telus on July 14.

Until now, incoming text messages have not been subject to charges.

Thoughts?

[schmitty199]

Thoughts?

Either A, wake up to current times and get unlimited, or dont read the messages. They dont charge if you just delete it.

[RedSpikeyThing]

I think the fact they tried that is ******ed. I'm glad to see them getting in trouble for it.

Either A, wake up to current times and get unlimited, or dont read the messages. They dont charge if you just delete it.

Why should I have to pay for a message that was wrongfully sent to me? Just because I don't recognize the number it came from doesn't mean I don't know the person.

[schmitty199]

Why should I have to pay for a message that was wrongfully sent to me? Just because I don't recognize the number it came from doesn't mean I don't know the person.

You dont. You have an option to read the message, or exit and delete. It's definetly not right that they even tried to do this, but if thats the case on your plan it's not like your going to be hit up with a bunch of charges you dont want because of incoming messages.

[thoughtshewas18]

its the white collar criminals at their finest....i hope they get served in court, text messages is becoming very very popular and these fools are trying to tax it and make some more "moolah". i don't think a lot of people reliased that "texting" will soon one day be as popular as it is and getting....

[azma]

They dont charge if you just delete it.

.....Are you sure about that?

[zen]

I think there are too many law suits, but this one doesn't bother me.
If you give consumers contracts that do not charge them for a service (particularly a service with a frequency or phenomenon they can't fully control under their own volition) then you cannot revise the contract to start charging them, even if you wrote your contract with the right to make contractual changes.

That last part I'm not sure about, because it's Canada. But I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of limitations on contract law in the U.S. that protect people from blanket statements like "we reserve the right to make any changes to this contract....". Contract law and the concept of contracts in general exists so that an agreement can be put into writing. If you get the right to change a contract without consent, then the contract itself is inherently worthless.

[Jorge Sanchez]

Either A, wake up to current times and get unlimited, or dont read the messages. They dont charge if you just delete it.

I don't think that's true at all.

I think there are too many law suits, but this one doesn't bother me.
If you give consumers contracts that do not charge them for a service (particularly a service with a frequency or phenomenon they can't fully control under their own volition) then you cannot revise the contract to start charging them, even if you wrote your contract with the right to make contractual changes.

That last part I'm not sure about, because it's Canada. But I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of limitations on contract law in the U.S. that protect people from blanket statements like "we reserve the right to make any changes to this contract....". Contract law and the concept of contracts in general exists so that an agreement can be put into writing. If you get the right to change a contract without consent, then the contract itself is inherently worthless.

This is exactly my problem. If I want to opt out of my cell phone plan I get charged a ridiculous amount of money, yet the cell phone provider can just introduce new fees whenever they want. If I was still under contract with Telus I would probably call them up and demand that they cancel my contract and pay me $10 for each remaining month - the same thing they would charge if I tried to unilaterally change my contract. Why should I sign a contract in the first place if all it does is lock me into a plan that can be changed on a whim?

Regardless, I will be changing cell phone providers because this is utter bull****.

[ryuage]

in the U.S. our incoming texts are charged... if you dont read them they are not. Most cell phone companies here state in the contract if there is a change in fees that you may cancel, you might want to look into that.

[Nik00117]

Recieving text or anything should not cost you a dime. It should be on the person intiating the action.

[Jorge Sanchez]

It's no getting charged for receiving a text message that bothers me, it's the fact that they (think they) can just get away with changing a contract whenever they want.

Ryuage, thanks for the heads-up about the clause. I'm not under contract anymore, but it's good to know for the future. But my beef still stands: if I want to cancel my plan I get charged fees, but they can change the contract without any penalty other than allowing me the privilege to walk away. The contract is absolutely useless for me since it doesn't guarantee anything.

[ryuage]

why would you get charged cancellation fees if you are not under contract?

[Bohizzle]

why would you get charged cancellation fees if you are not under contract?

I think he's saying that IF he were under contract, he'd have to pay ridiculous fees to get out of it. I'm currently with virgin mobile, and so far I haven't heard of anything affecting my text messages, so hopefully this just sticks to bell and telus.

Andrew

[Jorge Sanchez]

Yeah, that's what I meant.

[schmitty199]

I don't think that's true at all.

While ill admit im not 100 percent sure, if pretty confident you have to open the message to be charged. It's just like a call, if you ignore it no minutes are used.

[zen]

While ill admit im not 100 percent sure, if pretty confident you have to open the message to be charged. It's just like a call, if you ignore it no minutes are used.

my phone automatically displays the message (horizontal scrolling) as soon as it arrives right underneath the number (and name if I have that programmed into the phone).
BTW, I don't think my provider (T-mobile) charges me to receive. It's only when I send.

[RedSpikeyThing]

While ill admit im not 100 percent sure, if pretty confident you have to open the message to be charged. It's just like a call, if you ignore it no minutes are used.

I don't think there's anyway for the network (and thus your provider) to know the difference between an opened and unopened message. Your phone downloads all of it from the network and saves it on the phone. When your recieving a phone call the phone has to tell the network that you have picked it up.

[WBBIRL]

BS in my opinion....

You shouldn't be charged for incoming texts, just for sending. But the way the world is today, it wouldn't surprise me if there were just thousands of people sitting around all day dreaming up ridiculous charges and fee's to add on to every services.

[zen]

BS in my opinion....

You shouldn't be charged for incoming texts, just for sending. But the way the world is today, it wouldn't surprise me if there were just thousands of people sitting around all day dreaming up ridiculous charges and fee's to add on to every services.

It's true. What do you think satellite radio is?
The radio industry people spent decades wishing there was a way to charge for radio broadcasts a service fee like cable TV did for their broadcasts.... but of course, you can't connect a cable to your car. LOL. Then some brainiac thought about using satellite to do this. There is virtually no difference between satellite and terrestrial radio broadcasts except that the satellite service companies have a proprietary lock on you receiving their signal with proprietary (licensed) hardware.
I will never buy a satellite radio. Ever, unless the broadcasts are free.

[McVein]

When i heard about this i thouht it was a joke, friends of mine are n the US on j1s and they said dont text their US phones as you get charged for them?!?! there is no sense behind this at all.

Although they did say phone calls were completley free.

either waym being charged for a text is weird as ****.

[Jorge Sanchez]

Look who's back: drunken McVein. Where've you been?

[JSully]

I think, for once, that the US can finally say "get used to it" to canada about something. We keep hearing it about gas prices and how Canooks are paying so much already and telling us to get used to it. Cell phones have been like that here in the US for years. I remember before I added texting to my phone, I would get charged $.20/text from Sprint..

I just bought unlimited texting for $10/month.. get used to it. lol..

[McVein]

Look who's back: drunken McVein. Where've you been?

i have been training bjj and slowly turning into a weed. it saddens me.

[zen]

This is the sort of thing that might go away if it's a big enough issue for consumers, because once one of the major providers offers free incoming texts, the other providers will fear an exodus and follow suit.
But I'm not sure that it's a big issue for most people. I couldn't tell you for sure whether I pay for incoming texts.

[Jorge Sanchez]

I think, for once, that the US can finally say "get used to it" to canada about something. We keep hearing it about gas prices and how Canooks are paying so much already and telling us to get used to it. Cell phones have been like that here in the US for years. I remember before I added texting to my phone, I would get charged $.20/text from Sprint..

I just bought unlimited texting for $10/month.. get used to it. lol..

It's not paying for incoming texts that bothers me, it's changing the contract mid-stream that is the real issue.

This is the sort of thing that might go away if it's a big enough issue for consumers, because once one of the major providers offers free incoming texts, the other providers will fear an exodus and follow suit.
But I'm not sure that it's a big issue for most people. I couldn't tell you for sure whether I pay for incoming texts.

It's going in the opposite direction in Canada. We had free incoming text messaging, and now two of the biggest cell phone providers are beginning to charge. I'm not sure if the others will follow suit, but I plan on cancelling my plan and telling them exactly why.