Customers who flee Bell Canada’s products and services for lower prices and less abusive Internet Overcharging are being encouraged to visit what Bell internally calls its “customer winback” website.  It’s Bell Canada’s place to extend special pricing and promotional offers to those considering a return to the telephone company.  But Stop the Cap! found the offers less than compelling and some of the company’s claims a real stretch:

There are many reasons to switch to Bell.

Switch to Bell for the most reliable home phone service¹. We’ve made many enhancements and are so confident you’ll enjoy our services, they come with a complete 30-day satisfaction guarantee, or your money back².  Switching is easy.  You can keep your existing home phone number³ and we’ll take care of the details with your current service provider.

With Bell Home phone you’ll enjoy:

• The most reliable service
• No reconnection fees

Plus, take advantage of savings on more great Bell services for your home.

Bell Internet – Perfect for sharing

• The largest fibre optic network in Canada
• Upload speeds up to 3x faster than cable⁴
• Free Wireless Home Network

Bell Satellite TV- Over 100 HD channels

• Stunning HD picture quality – 10x better than regular cable
• Canada’s best HD PVR⁵ – set and manage recordings from anywhere
• On Demand movies in 1080p HD – the highest quality of any provider

With Bell Install, you get a complete and customized installation at no charge⁶. Sit back, relax and we’ll set everything up for you.

Join the thousands of customers switching to Bell every week and start saving.

With six footnotes to the fine print in as many paragraphs, warning bells begin to ring almost immediately.  Those footnotes can cost customers some real money:

1. Applies to traditional copper-based (excluding fibre-based) wireline telephony; compared to cable telephony and based on continued service during extended power outages at customer’s home.

In other words, Bell phone service is more reliable because it works when the power goes out, unless it’s from Bell’s Fibe TV.  When power drops, your Bell Fibe phone line goes with it.  But if your phone lines are rotten, nothing will save you from a phone service outage, whether you are a wireline or “fibre-based” customer.  By the way, although Fibe is fibre part of the way, it ultimately arrives for most customers on the same copper wire phone line technology you’ve had for decades.

2. Credit offered on service fees for TV, Internet, Home phone (excluding Mobility), and applicable installation, activation or equipment fees; does not apply to usage fees (such as long distance, additional Internet usage capacity, On Demand TV programming). Client must call within 30 days of activation. Conditions apply, see bell.ca/satisfaction.

Among the other terms and conditions not immediately disclosed:

• No refunds will be issued to customers modifying or upgrading any existing Eligible Services;
• Prior to issuing a refund for equipment purchased directly from Bell, the equipment must be returned to Bell in the same condition as when it was purchased, with all original packing materials, manuals, accessories and associated equipment, along with proof of purchase;
• You may claim no more than one (1) refund under the Bell Satisfaction Guarantee in any 12 month period;
• You must be fully compliant with the terms and conditions applicable to your Eligible Services, and
• All accounts for Bell services must be in good standing.

3. Within same local calling area

A no-brainer.

4. Current as of May 1, 2011. Comparison between Bell Fibe Internet 25 (upload up to 7 Mbps) and Rogers Ultimate Internet (upload up to 2 Mbps).

Bell apparently doesn’t think Quebec’s Videotron is worth mentioning.  They upgraded to 3Mbps upload speeds for their highest tiers last February.  Like AT&T’s U-verse, “fiber to the neighborhood” networks simply cannot deliver the fastest download Internet experience that fiber to the home or cable DOCSIS 3 providers can deliver, although the upload speed for Fibe (when you actually achieve 7Mbps) is a nice change from the neutered speeds cable companies provide for “the up side.”  But Bell counts your upload traffic against the usage allowance.

5. Based on a combination of 30-second skip function, 9-day programming guide, expandable recording capacity and remote PVR feature. Additional equipment required.

Additional equipment costs additional money.

6. Conditions apply; see bell.ca/fullinstall for Bell Internet and bell.ca/installationincluded for Bell TV. For Home Phone, available to customers with Home Phone Choice or Complete, or with Unlimited Canada/US long distance plan, or the Bell Bundle; one-time activation fee (up to $55/line) applies, credited on the account before taxes, and additional charges may apply for installation of a new phone jack.

A complete and customized installation “at no charge,” except for that pesky $55 “activation fee” eventually credited on the account (but you still pay GST/PST on the ‘rebated’ amount).  Some of our readers have complained to us that they’ve had to call Bell, sometimes repeatedly, to get that activation fee credited back.  Bell sometimes forgets.

Unfortunately, for too many in suburban and rural Canada, it’s Bell telephone infrastructure or nothing — no cable provider exists to offer a competitive alternative.  They are the company that charges more for less.

Considering Bell is Canada’s number one advocate for Internet Overcharging, you can do better with almost any other provider.  Let Bell know they can “win you back” when they deliver scheme-free service at a fair and reasonable price.  Until then, tell them they can swing alone.

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission is investigating Canadian ISP practices all week in a series of public hearings.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) opened the first day of hearings on the practice of usage-based billing for Internet usage, advocated by the country’s largest wholesale provider of Internet bandwidth, Bell Canada.

These hearings are a follow-up to earlier ones that ultimately allowed Bell to mandate usage billing not only for its own customers, but for all independent ISPs that purchase bandwidth from the company.  Since the vast majority of independent providers purchase bandwidth from Bell, the CRTC ruling would have mandated the end of “unlimited use” Internet plans across the country.

Nearly a half-million Canadians disagreed with the CRTC ruling and created a political firestorm earlier this year, demanding that the government step in and overturn the CRTC ruling.  Bell temporarily withdrew the usage based billing mandate pending the outcome of hearings expected to run from today until early next week.

Appearing at today’s hearing, executives from Bell continued to defend usage-based pricing and plan pricing that forces consumers to guess at how much Internet usage they will need each month.

In more aggressive questioning than earlier hearings, CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein questioned Internet pricing plans that do not “rollover” or rebate consumers for unused usage, but still penalizes customers for going over their plan limits.

von Finckenstein also questioned Bell’s pricing for independent ISPs, particularly penalty rates ISPs who underestimate their wholesale usage needs would face under Bell’s advocated pricing model.  The chairman seemed suspicious of the fact Bell does not charge its own ISP unit penalty rates, only independent providers.

The hearing will also explore why companies like Bell can deliver “unlimited viewing” on their Fibe TV IPTV service, but cannot deliver unlimited Internet access to end users.

Interested in following the hearings live? Visit the CRTC live stream hearing page.

[Updated 10:20am ET: Bell Canada executives just admitted in this morning’s hearings its Internet Overcharging scheme involving usage pricing many times higher than the actual cost of provisioning the service was driven by “competition” and not by “congestion” issues.  In other words, Canadian consumers are paying very high Internet pricing and overlimit fees because of the pervasive lack of competition, not because companies need the extra money to “upgrade their networks.”]

The Competition Bureau has fined Bell Canada $10 million for what it calls the phone company’s misleading pricing for its wireless, broadband, phone, and satellite TV services.  The agency accused Bell of advertising one price for service, but charged customers considerably more after hidden fees were tacked on.  That made it impossible for any customer to actually purchase Bell’s services at their advertised prices.

The fine, the maximum amount that can be levied, was designed to send a message, according to Commissioner Melanie Aitken.

“When a price is offered to consumers, it must be accurate,” Aitken said. “Including a fine-print disclaimer is no license to advertise prices that are not available.”

Since December 2007, Bell routinely advertised product bundles that it claimed were priced at less than $70 a month, but after the hidden fees were calculated, Canadian consumers routinely paid north of $80.

Aitken

Aitken took issue with rental fees for equipment, term contract escape penalties, mandatory “add-ons” that were not included in the advertised price, and hidden “junk fees” designed to look like government-mandated taxes.  They all routinely add at least $10 to most telecommunications bills, even before actual government fees are calculated.

Bell protested the Bureau’s findings, but quickly agreed to pay the fine, modify its advertising, and cover the $100,000 estimated cost of the agency’s investigation.

The Competition Bureau has become a thorn in the side of many major corporate entities in Canada after winning new powers in 2009 to protect consumer interests.  The agency is currently pursuing a $10 million fine against Rogers Communications for “hit piece” advertising misleading consumers about Rogers’ wireless rivals — especially Wind Mobile.

But Rogers is not going quietly as Bell has done, vowing to drag the matter through the courts to void any fines or penalties.

Aitken promises she isn’t necessarily done with telecommunications companies, suggesting any company burying extra costs in the fine print, or subjecting customers to penalty fees for canceling service might be on notice.

Telecommunications companies in Canada have traditionally opposed government agencies that champion consumer protections.  Most notably, Bell, Rogers, and Quebecor Media have all attacked the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, an independent agency that monitors and assists consumers with issues related to phone and cable companies.  Bell wanted the organization abolished, while Rogers and Quebecor sought to see participation in it made voluntary.

Unfortunately, consumers won’t share in the $10 million fine from Bell.  Those funds will be collected and kept by the Canadian government.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC Bell fined 10M over ads 6-28-11.flv[/flv]

CBC covers Bell’s $10 million dollar fine for advertising one price for service, but sending a much higher bill with tacked on hidden fees and surcharges.  (2 minutes)

Unless Canada deregulates the media industry further, a “technological storm” by “audiovisual Wal-Marts” will harm or destroy Canada’s media companies.  No doubt looking directly at Netflix, those were the views of Quebecor CEO Pierre Karl Peladeau at the outset of hearings held this week by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission on media ownership and vertical integration issues.

Canada’s media landscape is rapidly consolidating at a rate that will allow even ordinary Canadians with a passing interest in the issue to recognize the handful of remaining media moguls and identify them by name.  Phone companies that own major Canadian television networks, cable operators that own cell phone companies, and mergers among the dwindling pack have left consumers soaking in Shaw, Rogers, Bell, and Quebecor — whether they flip on their televisions, make a cell phone call, read a newspaper, or download something from the Internet.  Talk about vertical integration!  Now the supersized are back for more deregulation so they can trade programming rights between themselves, fend off the devil — Netflix, and of course continue to buy each other out.

There is one exception, of course.  Allowing party crashers.  While all of the incumbent players want the rules loosened up on their respective media and telecommunications operations, they are hellbent on keeping foreign competition out of Canada — the only real deep pockets sufficient to break up a convenient cartel of phone and cable companies.  Rogers and Shaw stay on their respective sides of a line dividing eastern Canada’s turf for Rogers and western Canada’s territory for Shaw.  Bell and Telus do much the same.  Quebecor provides cable for Quebec, and a handful of much smaller players fight for any remaining crumbs.

For Americans, it would be the equivalent of turning over your telephone, broadband, cable, television, newspapers, magazines, and radio stations to Rupert Murdoch or ex-media baron Ted Turner.

For Canadians, these hearings come just a tad too late.  Shaw Communications is absorbing their latest buyout — Canwest Media’s TV assets, which are hardly meager.  Shaw will run more than two dozen local broadcast TV outlets, 30 cable and satellite networks, and Global — a major broadcast network.  Bell is still popping Rolaids over its digestion of the enormous CTV and smaller upstart A-Channel network.  When it’s finished, “A” will become “CTV Two.”

The Globe and Mail notes between them, Bell, Shaw, Rogers and Quebecor control:

• 86 per cent of cable and satellite distribution;
• 70 per cent of wireless revenues;
• 63 per cent of the wired telephone market;
• 49 per cent of Internet Service Provider revenues;
• 42 per cent of radio;
• 40 per cent of the television universe;
• 19 per cent of the newspaper and magazine markets;
• 60 per cent of total revenues from all of the above media sectors combined.

As far as growth goes, as Alan Keyes used to proclaim, “that’s geometric!”

But it’s still not enough now that Netflix has arrived in Canada.  Despite the fact the operation has been challenged by punitive usage caps restricting viewing (or lowering its video quality), Netflix and new technology companies like it are the 21st century boogeymen for these multi-billion dollar media corporations.  The only way to defend against it?  Deregulate to allow them to trade viewing rights, grow larger, and charge whatever they like.  Somehow that seems to miss the point: Netflix is popular because it costs less, allows people to stream the shows they actually want to watch at a time of their choosing, and let’s families drop some overpriced premium channels and video rental fees along the way.

Bell’s dollar-a-holler researcher expanded on why large media conglomerates miss the point, even if he did so unintentionally.

According to University of Alberta economics professor, Jeffrey Church, “vertical integration is beneficial for consumers.” Sit down as you read why:

• it reflects efficiencies, spurs competitive innovation and is a global trend;
• telecom, media and Internet markets in Canada are “highly competitive;”
• our ‘small media economy’ needs a few deep-pocketed national champions to compete globally and invest heavily in innovation at home;
• instances of harm are mostly imaginary and few and far between;
• it helps keep “consumers . . . within the regulated system” (Shaw’s submission, p. 4).

Like cattle.

Anthony Lacavera

Large Canadian telecommunications companies like Rogers, Telus, and Bell are loudly protesting a proposal to cap the maximum number of wireless licenses they can beg, borrow, or buy.

The proposal, from Wind Mobile and Quebecor Inc.’s Vidéotron Ltée, would tell some of Canada’s largest telecom companies they cannot buy up every available wireless license that becomes available in the future in an effort to lock out would-be competitors.  Both companies fear that without such a license cap, the deep pockets of larger providers could sustain a wireless cartel to keep mobile competition at bay.

“Competition doesn’t just ‘happen’,” said Wind Mobile’s Anthony Lacavera. “True competition and the long term benefits of competition for Canadians will occur when, and if, our regulatory framework is improved, our access to foreign capital is unhindered and the playing field is leveled to the benefit of Canadians.”

Lacavera’s upstart Wind Mobile has faced incumbent provider-fueled scrutiny over claims of foreign ownership violations in an effort to keep Wind’s discount service out of Canada.  In addition to fending off regulatory challenges, Lacavera is wary of Conservative Party policy towards wireless competition, which he suspects is too shallow and lacks important protections against further marketplace concentration.

The idea of a license limit met with predictable hostility from the three larger incumbents.

On Wednesday, Telus’ chief financial officer rejected the idea out of hand, telling the government they should not be giving advantages to discount carriers and foreign entities over Telus, which he said was more focused on “innovation.”

Wind Mobile

Rogers called a license cap “a slap in the face” to millions of their customers, and Bell pulled an AT&T — without allowing companies like Bell to have the chance to outbid everyone else, Canada will run the “risk of lagging” behind the United States, harm innovation, and deprive the government of much needed auction revenue.

Bell CEO George Cope also warned letting foreign companies into the Canadian market could leave rural Canada with older technology.  At the risk of shooting down his own earlier argument, Cope specifically targeted his remarks at U.S. carriers, who presumably could be among Canada’s future wireless players.  In Cope’s mind, U.S. providers like AT&T would treat Canada as an afterthought.

“If you really believe that if a U.S. carrier had owned Bell at the time we launched HSPA+ (an advanced iteration of 3G), do you really believe Prince Edward Island, that province, would have had HSPA+ before Chicago?” Cope asked. “You’ve got to be kidding me.”

Large incumbent carriers also accused the smaller competing upstarts of simply trying to boost their own value before they sell out.  Telus and Rogers should know — they fought over buying that competition, like Microcell’s Fido, which Rogers eventually acquired in 2004.