Meet Daniel and Kate Methot, proud owners of $5000+ in Bell data charges the company cannot explain.

A couple from Merritt, B.C. has received bills from Bell for more than $5,000 in data usage, even after the skyrocketing bills made the family so frightened of their phone, they turned it off.

This is the story of Daniel and Kate Methot, who purchased a smartphone from Bell in October of last year.  When the first bill arrived, it contained more than $1,000 in data charges.

“My wife looked at me and I thought ‘Oh boy, what did I do that I didn’t know that I had done? I am in trouble’,” Daniel told CBC News.

When Internet Overcharging of this magnitude occurs, most people first blame themselves, assuming they did something wrong.  The Methot family figured they downloaded a malfunctioning or data hungry app or left something running on the phone.

“We never thought we would be billed for something we weren’t using. That was sort of a new concept for us,” Daniel said, but the family still sought guidance from Bell on how the charges could get that high.

“They really couldn’t give us an answer,” Kate said.

The family deleted everything they could find on their new Samsung Galaxy phone in hopes of stopping the surprise charges.

But when the December bill arrived, the couple was horrified to discover their new bill was more than $3,500 — almost entirely for data usage that literally cost Bell pennies to provide.  In fact, the phone company managed to bill the couple for 30 hours of usage during one 24-hour day, a clear warning sign there was a severe billing problem at work here.

But when it comes to protesting charges with Bell, the Methots discovered customers are guilty until proved innocent.

“I felt like I was being treated like a criminal — like we were trying to essentially steal from them,” Daniel said. “When you call in to argue a bill, that’s what they do. They tell you to pay — and don’t ask questions.”

Kate got a stern lecture from Bell telling her to quit watching videos on her phone all day long.

Of course, the couple denied doing any such thing.  In fact, by the time January arrived, both Daniel and Kate became afraid of even going near their phone, much less using it.  The couple routinely shuts the phone off when they are not actually using it for calls, but still the data charges kept coming — more than $5,200 to date.

CBC News asked Bell several times for a response to the Methot’s complaint. While refusing an in-depth interview on the topic, Bell told CBC News it cannot yet explain what is happening with the account.

That hardly inspires confidence for the Methot family.  Despite Bell being unable to explain the charges, they continue to insist on being paid for at least some of them.

The couple even hired a lawyer for $400 to send a letter to Bell demanding better answers or the couple would not continue to pay the unexplained charges.

In that case, Bell would simply turn their account over to collections, and potentially ruin their credit rating.

Bell’s theories about the stratospheric bills include:

• They are running up the bill themselves and now trying to run away from the charges they incurred;
• They are using the phone’s Wi-Fi hotspot feature, inadvertently allowing the entire neighborhood to share their connection;
• They are watching Netflix all day and into the night;
• They ran across the border into the United States and are incurring roaming charges;
• They are tethering their computer to the phone and that consumes massive amounts of data.

The one explanation Bell hasn’t imagined is that their billing system is completely fouled up and their usage meter cannot be trusted.  One might imagine Bell could actually determine where the phone is being used, to dismiss the roaming theory.  Plus Daniel reports he is incurring data charges even when the phone is completely powered off.

Finally, Bell admitted they were responsible, credited the account for more than $3,000 of the charges, and the Methot family thought their long nightmare was over.

Only it isn’t.

Merritt, B.C.

Days later, though, they received a bill with $1,204 in new charges.

“It was just a temporary relief and then the stress is back again,” Kate said.

“At that point I wasn’t interested in being a Bell customer anymore,” Daniel added.

On top of that, Bell has reneged on their apology, now claiming they were not responsible for the faulty charges after all.  The Methot family can pay their $1,200 phone bill with cash, check, money order or credit card.  And if they plan to leave, they better be ready to cough up the early termination fee as well — another several hundred dollars.

Isolated incident?  Don’t bet on it.

“These customers are not alone,” Howard Maker, the head of the federal Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services told CBC News. “Unfortunately, Canadian telecom consumers do suffer from many billing errors from their providers.”

Maker said his office received more than 1,900 complaints about wireless providers last year, and 40 per cent of them were about overcharging.

With Bell insisting customers can trust their usage meter — the one that generates $5,000 in data charges for one family alone — Canadians should prepare themselves for the bills that will follow. With no oversight agency able to monitor the accuracy of the meter, Bell customers will just have to take their word for it.

[flv width=”640″ height=”388″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC News Couple’s huge bills unexplained by Bell 3-1-11.flv[/flv]

CBC News talks with the Methot family about their Internet Overcharging experience.  (5 minutes)

The Openmedia.ca folks have created several “parking tickets” designed to call attention to the issue of Internet Overcharging among ordinary Canadians.

Appearing under a windshield near you, these clever notices educate consumers about unjustified usage caps and so-called “metered billing” which only exists to drive up provider profits.

Even Bell trucks are not immune, as an enterprising protester found time to share the news with the company that seeks to eliminate flat rate Internet access in the country.

Canada’s House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry Science and Technology has taken an in-depth look at Internet Overcharging in an ongoing series of hearings to explore Bell’s petition to charge usage-based billing.  The request, earlier approved by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), would end flat rate, unlimited usage plans across the country, and mandate Bell’s proscribed usage cap regime on every ISP in Canada.

Remarkably, even Canada’s Conservative Party, which laid the deregulatory framework that allowed Canada’s barely-competitive market to stick it to consumers and small businesses, refuses to defend the overcharging schemes.

So far, the three hearings deliver everything Stop the Cap! has warned about since we began this fight in the summer of 2008:

1. Proof that usage caps, and consumption-based billing have nothing to do with cost recovery or fairness.  They are, at their root, economically engineered to discourage use of the Internet and protect revenue from the provider’s other businesses, especially video.
2. There is no evidence of a data tsunami, exaflood, or whatever other term providers and their financially-connected allies in the equipment business cook up to warn about an explosion of data usage mandating control measures.  Data usage is increasing at a slower rate than the development of new equipment and fiber pipelines to manage it.
3. Nobody ever saves a thing with Internet Overcharging schemes.  While Bell and other providers make up scary stories about “heavy users” picking “innocent” users’ pockets, it’s the providers themselves making all the money.  In fact, bytes of data have no intrinsic value.  The pipelines that deliver data at varying speeds do, which is why providers are well-compensated for use of them.  Levying additional charges for data consumption is nothing more than extra profit — a broadband usage tax.  Providers make plenty selling users increasingly profitable connections based on speed.  They do not need to be paid twice.
4. For all the talk about the need to invest in network expansion, Bell has reduced infrastructure spending on its core broadband networks the last three years’ running.  They are spending more on deploying Internet Protocol TV (IPTV), a service the company swears has nothing to do with the Internet or their broadband service (despite the fact it travels down the exact same pipeline).
5. Caps and usage billing never bring about innovation, except from providers looking for new ways to charge their customers more for less service.

I strongly encourage readers to spend an evening watching and listening to these hearings.  At least download the audio and let Canada’s broadband story penetrate.  You will laugh, cringe, and sometimes want to throw things at your multimedia player.

In the end, the hearings illustrate the points we’ve raised here repeatedly over the past three years, and it only strengthens our resolve to battle these Internet pricing ripoffs wherever they appear.  If you are a Canadian citizen,write your MP and demand an end to “usage-based billing” and make it clear this issue is paramount for your vote at the next election.  Don’t debate the numbers or waste time “compromising” on how much you want to be ripped off.  There is no middle ground for usage-based pricing.  It should be rejected at every turn, everywhere, with no compromises.  After all, aren’t you paying enough for your Internet connection already?

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 54 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 3, 2011

This video is encoded in the Windows Media format which presents some technical challenges.  Full screen or 200% zoom-viewing mode is recommended.

[For Windows users, right click the video and select ‘Zoom->Full Screen’ or ‘Zoom->200%’.]

This hearing was televised and had the most media attention.  Testimony from the CRTC was decidedly defensive, and almost entirely in support of usage-based billing and Bell’s petition.  The Commission found no friends in this hearing.

Appearing from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission: Konrad W. von Finckenstein, Chairman; Len Katz, Vice-Chairman, Telecommunications; Lynne Fancy, Acting Executive Director, Telecommunications.  (1 hour, 29 minutes)

If you want to take the hearing audio along for a ride, you can download the MP3 version.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 55 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 8, 2011

The second in a series of hearings exploring Usage-based billing included witnesses from independent Internet Service Providers who could face extinction if they are forced to pay higher prices for wholesale broadband access.

Appearing: Rocky Gaudrault, CEO of TekSavvy Solutions Inc., Matt Stein, vice-president of network services for Primus Telecommunications Canada, and Jean-François Mezei, a Montreal-based telecommunications consultant who most recently petitioned the CRTC to repeal its decision. (120 minutes)

You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

Meeting # 56 – Usage-based Billing Practices

February 10, 2011

The third in a series of hearings exploring Usage-based billing included witnesses from Bell Canada, which originally proposed the idea, and additional testimony from independent Internet Service Providers and their trade association, and consumer advocates who oppose the pricing scheme.

Appearing: OpenMedia.ca: Steve Anderson, Founder and National Coordinator. Bell Canada: Jonathan Daniels, Vice-President, Law and Regulatory Affairs; Mirko Bibic, Senior Vice-President, Regulatory and Government Affairs. Shaw Communications Inc.: Jean Brazeau, Senior Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs; Ken Stein, Senior Vice-President, Corporate and Regulatory Affairs. Canadian Association of Internet Providers: Monica Song, Counsel, Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP. MTS Allstream Inc.: Teresa Griffin-Muir, Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs. Union des consommateurs: Anthony Hémond, Lawyer, Analyst, policy and regulations in telecommunications, broadcasting, information highway and privacy. Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc.: Bill Sandiford, President; Christian S. Tacit, Barrister and Solicitor, Counsel. (128 minutes)

You must remain on this page to hear the clip, or you can download the clip and listen later.

During the third day of hearings on usage-based billing, Mirko Bibic from Bell admitted that usage-based billing “prevents [other ISPs] from differentiating their offers from our own.”

That remarkable admission is exactly what independent Internet Service Providers have been arguing since the issue of wholesale usage-based billing was first proposed by Canada’s largest broadband supplier.

Independent providers have managed to carve out a niche supplying primarily residential DSL customers with flat rate usage plans, made possible because of wholesale access provisions assured under Canada’s telecommunications regulations.  As Bell, Rogers, Shaw, and Videotron have systematically imposed usage limits on their residential customers (and occasionally lowered them), consumers seeking better value have found it from smaller ISPs that still offer unlimited access.

As Bell frets over its inability to reap retail revenue from customers departing for other providers, the idea of imposing usage-based billing on wholesale accounts ends that revenue erosion once and for all.  As Bell admits, it forces every provider in Canada to charge the same high prices they do for Internet access.

Canada’s telecom regulator, the CRTC, still cannot define what a “heavy user” is, and neither could Bibic.  But with these pricing schemes, now they don’t have to.  Imposing higher prices with vague promises that the resulting revenue will expand Canada’s broadband networks is eerily familiar to what Time Warner promised residents in several major cities, and then didn’t deliver.

In western New York, the cable company promised a new generation of blazing fast speeds on a world class broadband network, as long as customers agreed to pay up to $150 for unlimited residential service per month.  The old price was $50.  But the cable company provided those upgrades in other cities instead — without usage based pricing.  No wonder residents were furious.  After two weeks of protest, Time Warner threw in the towel.

Two years later, the promised upgrades are finally slated to arrive, long after being made available in most large cities in New York State.

Provider-promised bait and switch broadband upgrades merely represent sucker bets, and no one except the provider wins.

If Bell gets its way, there will be no reason for anyone to do business with an independent service provider.  They’ll be forced to charge increased prices, sometimes even higher than Bell itself.

The telephone landline business is hardly a growth industry, as an average of 5-7 percent of customers disconnect their home phone service every quarter, but you wouldn’t know that from the dividends being paid to stockholders.

From AT&T, Bell Canada, Frontier to Qwest — the companies that speak in terms of keeping their customer defection rates down are paying dividends that often exceed earnings.

Among the worst of all — Frontier Communications, whose outsized dividend is expected to reach 75 cents a share.  That, despite the fact analysts predict the phone company will earn only 40 cents a share or so this year.

Where do these phone companies expect to make their money?  Their broadband and wireless divisions.  AT&T and Bell Canada are able to cover landline losses with enhanced profits from their IPTV services like U-verse and Fibe.  Frontier and Qwest expect to survive on providing cheap-to-deploy DSL service in rural areas avoided by cable operators.