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.

Phillip "No Data Tsunami Over Here" Dampier

As the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission enters into the second week of hearings on Internet Overcharging, there have really only been a few minor surprises.

First, and most importantly, when voting consumers pay attention, regulators start asking questions and get aggressive.  This is the same commission that only a year ago gave the green light to wholesale usage-based billing (UBB) — a practice that would guarantee every ISP in Canada dropped flat rate Internet service.  After a half-million Canadians signed Openmedia.ca’s petition opposing UBB, the Harper government (and the opposition parties) got interested, and the Commission got an earful from Industry Minister Tony Clement, who was simply appalled at this kind of Internet pricing.

Second, this round of CRTC hearings has found Bell — UBB’s biggest proponent — largely unrepentant.  It still supports charging people for their usage, even as the company’s foundation for that premise — bandwidth congestion — erodes away.  Providers can claim anything they like, but they cannot invent facts.  By Friday, most of the commissioners realized what consumer advocates had been saying all along — there is no great bandwidth crisis in Canada.  No data tsunami. No exaflood in the zettabyte era.  Growth is exponential to be sure, and Canadians have a passionate affair with their Internet connectivity, but one that remains easily managed when providers make regular, affordable investments in upgrading their networks.

Bell’s week-long contention that congestion pricing was paramount to managing Canada’s bandwidth finally fell apart when CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein noted Bell’s trinity of regional entities managed Internet usage completely differently, even though the traffic passed through the exact same network:

• 1) Bell Aliant, which provides service in the Atlantic provinces, has no usage caps at all.
• 2) Bell Quebec provides service with a considerably more generous usage allowance than given to those customers in Ontario, even those just on the other side of the border.
• 3) Bell Ontario’s usage cap is downright stingy compared with Quebec, most likely because it competes in Ontario with an equally stingy provider — Rogers Cable.

With these facts in evidence, Bell was finally forced to concede it was “competition” not “congestion” that brought three different treatments of Internet usage.  So much for “network congestion.”

Bell’s competitors also hung the telecom giant out to dry when it was their turn to testify.  Each in turn would claim that congestion presented no problems for their respective networks.  Telus, Rogers and Shaw all denied they shared Bell’s usage problems.  That is not to say any of them were in favor of restoring flat-rate Internet access.

Instead, they argued, UBB represented a combination of “stimulating investment” in broadband networks (already insanely profitable for all-comers) and “peak usage pricing,” a hybridized argument about congestion during peak usage periods.  Since some wholesale broadband services are priced at peak capacity requirements, some argue UBB helps keep that peak usage manageable during prime time.

Unfortunately, the peak usage pricing argument undermines itself because Canadian providers enforce usage limits 24/7, not only during peak usage periods.  This means there is no incentive for users to offload their heaviest usage to times when the network experiences low demand.  Independent providers continue to argue “peak usage pricing” may be defensible in certain circumstances, but it’s not even a possibility under Bell’s proposed wholesale UBB scheme.

The record being constructed from Canada’s hearings have direct implications for Americans, as the basic business models for cable and phone providers are similar in both countries.  The death rattle of the “congestion” myth is good news for North American broadband users who have long rolled their eyes at hysterical arguments about data floods and capacity crises.

The CRTC still needs to hear from some additional speakers, and we are under no illusion they will completely reverse themselves on Internet Overcharging schemes, but this represents a clear-cut case that consumers need not simply sit back and take abusive pricing.  Consumer activism can make a real difference in the broadband policies of both the United States and Canada.  It takes a concerted effort, but once a critical mass of consumers is achieved, the ability for providers to simply do as they please becomes a virtual impossibility.

That’s good news for all of us.

[flv width=”640″ height=”368″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CBC UBB 7-11-11.flv[/flv]

CBC News covers the start of the CRTC hearings and what UBB pricing is doing to Canada’s Internet experience.  (2 minutes)

Pentefountas

Stop the Cap! is following this week’s extensive hearings into Internet Overcharging in Canada by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).  The debate into Bell’s attempt to mandate usage-based billing for -every- provider in Canada, regardless of whether they are owned or operated by Bell, reached a new level of absurdity this morning when a Conservative appointee to the CRTC, Tom Pentefountas — the vice-chairman of the commission — asked this question to an astonished panel headed by Openmedia.ca, a consumer group fighting usage-based billing:

“What is so undemocratic about allowing a few companies to control the Internet?”

Pentefountas was openly hostile at times against Openmedia, questioning their membership, their funding, and whether they had a “self-interest” in the fight.  They do — consumers, a concept that evidently escapes the very Big Telecom-friendly new commissioner, appointed by the government of Stephen Harper.

Yesterday, much of the hearing was focused on Bell’s defense of UBB, and we noted Mirko Bibic’s increasing discomfort as the Bell lobbyist came under increasing scrutiny and hard questioning that he never experienced during earlier hearings (those that led to the CRTC’s approval of UBB).  Now that the public (and higher government officials) are watching and listening, what used to be a non-confrontational experience is today sounding increasingly skeptical of the arguments for UBB by many commissioners.

We’ll have audio archives of the hearings available here when they are published online.  They help build the record of carrier arguments for UBB, independent findings which call out those arguments, and the opposition to UBB and why flat rate broadband is important to the knowledge-based economy of North America.

There will be hurdles to overcome, starting with confronting the attitudes of commissioners like Mr. Pentefountas, who evidently does not understand the implications of a few corporate entities controlling Canada’s Internet.

Follow live coverage of the CRTC hearings here.

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)