Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones The Almighty Buck

TELUS Forcing Customers Off Unlimited Plans 268

Posted by kdawson
from the can't-eat-all-that dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Canadian telco TELUS sold a bunch of (expensive) Unlimited EV-DO aircard accounts last winter and are now summarily canceling them or forcing people to switch to much less valuable plans. TELUS is citing 'Violations,' but their Terms Of Service (see #5) are utterly vague and self-contradictory. The TELUS plans were marketed as being unlimited, without the soft/hard caps that the other providers had at the time. They were purchased by a lot of rural Canadians who had no other choice except dialup. Now TELUS is forcing everyone to switch from a $75 Unlimited plan to a $65 1GB plan, and canceling those who won't switch. Have a look at the thread at Howardforums, a discussion of the TELUS ToS (in red at the bottom), an EV-DO blogger who's been a victim, a post at Electronista, and of course Verizon getting fined for doing the same thing! Michael Geist has taken an interest as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TELUS Forcing Customers Off Unlimited Plans

Comments Filter:
  • Marketing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Quasar1999 (520073) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @05:48PM (#24756933) Journal
    Sounds like bait and switch...

    Except on closer examination it's the legal version... GOD how I love living in Canada! On the plus side, at least they didn't introduce an "Unlimited system access fee", claim it to be some sort of vague government forced thing, and then charge more for the fee (that is mandatory) than the service plan costs.

    Note to self: stop giving Telus more ideas on how to rape my ass!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by houbou (1097327)
      Sounds to me like Telus will be opening themselves to a lawsuit. When you have a contract... you need to abide by it. Eventually, it's only a matter of time for a petition-like process to be initiated by ticked-off customers to start and once this happens, a nice little lawsuit will more than likely result. Of course, if these customers have an ounce of common sense, they will involve the CRTC, who, once they get into this, will have a few pointed questions at Telus. As for "is it legal?" for Telus to d
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by loraksus (171574)

        Telus has a long history of changing / breaching contracts and having lawsuits filed against it.

        Their CSRs will tell you that they can change bandwidth limits at any time and if you go over the new lower limit during your contract period, they will charge you overage. If you quit, they will bill you the ETF (which is abusive) and send you to collections if you don't pay.

        They dropped the residential plan data transfer limit down to 20gb a month 2 years ago. Now it's back up to 60.

        Oh, and the CRTC is a bunch

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by snowraver1 (1052510)
      [...]at least they didn't introduce an "Unlimited system access fee", claim it to be some sort of vague government forced thing, and then charge more for the fee (that is mandatory) than the service plan costs.

      Uh yea they do. My bill dated July 25 has the following fee:
      System Access Fee - 6.95.

      Sorry if you were being sarcastic.
  • by iamhigh (1252742) * on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @05:48PM (#24756935)

    You agree that, to maintain or improve the service, or for other business reasons, TELUS can in its sole discretion, suspend, restrict, modify or terminate all or any part of the service or make changes to the network and other facilities without notice to you.

    And that is why "agreements" like this are worthless. They should just say "Here's what you are required to do... we can do as we damn well please." But honestly, is there any point in signing a contract when one party retains all rights to completely change the contract without allowing you the ability to opt-out of the contract? Is this even legal? Probably... can we change it?

    I am not real big on "consumer protections" but this type of stuff just seems ridiculous. At some point we have to realize that cell phones and internet access are pretty much not a privilege any more. All of us should have access to these shared resources (the tubes).

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      IANAL, nor am I Canadian, but I think we laymen can agree the quoted terms are unconscionable. If TELUS must change, then the customers who paid for something they're not getting should get something back.
      I was with you up until you said:

      At some point we have to realize that cell phones and internet access are pretty much not a privilege any more.

      Reasonable people can disagree over whether or not basic needs like health care are rights, but Internet access?!! That's nuts.

      • by IgnoramusMaximus (692000) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @07:26PM (#24757883)

        Reasonable people can disagree over whether or not basic needs like health care are rights, but Internet access?!! That's nuts.

        Not really. If the society moves to the stage where all essential services, government included, are on the Internet and inaccessible in a timely manner otherwise, Internet, like roads, become a necessity for living, only slightly less important then shelter or medical care. Telephones, for example, have long since crossed that line. In North America some means of long-range transportation (read: a car or some alternative) are pretty much a must in many cities if one wishes to obtain any employment at all, and thus sustenance and shelter.

        Should these things be free/subsidized? That is an argument between Communism, Socialism, Capitalism and other socio-economic systems and far outside the scope of this disucssion. But irrespective of your take, it is pretty obvious that telecommunications/transportation are not in the same category as tourism or bar-hopping and are far closer to shelter/medical care, and getting closer every day.

    • by RobBebop (947356) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @06:05PM (#24757119) Homepage Journal

      At some point we have to realize that cell phones and internet access are pretty much not a privilege any more. All of us should have access to these shared resources (the tubes).

      Disclaimer: American viewpoint.

      I agree that these services are nearly necessitates in today's society. Communication is king. It is required. Broadcast TV has been made a free service based on government regulation. On the other hand, electricity and heat are more necessary than communication and they are in the same competitive mode to keep prices low.

      Here's the difference that I see, though, between all these services... if the government was to start providing these as "free services" (like the majority of roads are) they are basically saying "this is as good as it gets". Competition for cheaper methods of delivering heat and electricity has historically kept these prices low, so these industries is well regulated. However, duopolistic behavior by Verizon and AT&T have caused the telephone companies to practice the same tricks that resulted in the original breakup of AT&T in 1984. Prices are what the phone companies want them to be and customers cannot elect fair "lower cost" options (pay-as-you-go is a joke at a quarter a minute and $30 for 450 minutes per month is excessive... and there is no middle ground).

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ceoyoyo (59147)

        $30 for 450 minutes per month? You've got to come up here to Canada and see what excessive is all about.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by QuantumRiff (120817)

          Not only that, but man, when you guys buy a book published in the US, its always like
          $20 US $24 CA

          And the Cannadian Currency is worth more than the US dollar now!

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hellwig (1325869)
          In America, the only thing we know about Canada and Europe is that you have free health-care and subsidized prescription coverage, and that gas is twice as expensive. What most don't know is that with things like salary caps, enforced work schedules and holidays, 40-60% income tax, etc... there are lots of things that are sacrificed for that free healthcare. There are good and bad things about socialist societies. I suppose unregulated telecoms is just another bad.
          • by Runefox (905204) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @07:15PM (#24757775) Homepage

            Our income tax in Canada is actually less than 30% for the highest tier, and typically 15-22% [wikipedia.org], which isn't hugely different from that in the United States [wikipedia.org] (actually, we're taxed less if you consider the dollars are more or less on par at the moment).

            • For federal tax, yes, but we pay provincial tax too. Then at the end of the day we take our earnings and pay more tax in the fuel we put in our cars, and more to the GST. I really like fuel tax, because they charge GST on top of the fuel tax, so the tax gets taxed.

              Before someone says "When the pump says $20, that's what I owe, there's no GST." The GST is included in the base price.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by ceoyoyo (59147)

            The income taxes in my province (Alberta) are lower than in California and several other states. Some of the things you think you know actually aren't true.

            And did you just say that unregulated telecoms are a bad thing about SOCIALIST societies??

          • by Runefox (905204) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @07:37PM (#24757993) Homepage

            Hate to doublepost, but to that end, I'm not sure our work schedules are any different from the United States, and our holidays work the same way, too. There are certain holidays that are considered federal, and businesses must give overtime for anyone working during a holiday, or a full day's pay for those who would have been scheduled in on that day.

            As for our telecoms, I'd take a closer look at your own before saying ours is unregulated. The industry here in Canada borders on price-fixing and racketeering, but the industry in the USA is balanced solely by competition. While wireless is one point where American industry is ahead (ours has been battling between GSM (Rogers) and CDMA (Bell-Aliant/Telus) for some time - GSM won), I hear a lot of horror stories about American broadband and cable TV that border on the same kind of monopolistic behaviour as our Wireless providers.

            That said, the only cable provider in this neck of the woods is Rogers, and the only traditional phone company is Bell-Aliant. Both offer a phone service (Rogers over the cable network, Bell-Aliant over traditional copper), both offer internet services (both high-speed and dial-up, Rogers by DOCSIS, Bell-Aliant by PPPoE), both offer wireless services (Rogers by GSM, Bell-Aliant by CDMA (going GSM)), and both offer TV services (Rogers by traditional analog and digital cable, Aliant by PPPoE/specialized modem (reduces high-speed transfer rates) and satellite). Both are nation-wide corporations, and they've got a nice duopoly going on in the Atlantic provinces. This isn't a failure of the government (though it would be nice if they could regulate this a little more), but rather a failure in the market; The same could be said of AT&T/Comcast (former co-owner of Rogers) and Bell/Verizon, though due to the market dynamics in the United States (and mostly, the population density), others have been able to squeeze in. Of course, that's just my observation.

    • And that is why in some other countries, legislation exists that proscribes specific examples of terms in contracts that are deemed to be unfair, i.e. may not be used in any contracts.
    • Mobile phones aren't a requirement. I don't have one, and I'm an Electrical Engineer. (EIT) I've had two kids, some emergencies, and I have never missed having a cell phone.

      As for the legality of the contract, they can't change the terms legally. That's what a contract is. You do this, I do this, until the contract ends or we die. If either party changes the terms and then the other party goes along with it, then the contract is considered accepted by their action. So if they say "Hey, we're charging you fo

      • by fm6 (162816)

        Mobile phones aren't a requirement.

        RTFA. This isn't about mobile phones, this is about mobile data plans, and people in rural areas that probably don't have any other way of getting online.

        You'd be foolish to spend millions to get back $150 in fees.

        Why does a simple issue of unfair fees have to go to the nation's highest court? And why does each individual who got ripped off have to pursue the issue separately?

        My lawyer has told me to "let go" of $2500 problems because they just aren't worth taking to court.

        That is, sadly, true. But that logic doesn't apply to every situation where one person owes another a small amount. In particular, a large corporation that rips off small amounts from thousands

        • Mobile phones aren't a requirement.

          RTFA. This isn't about mobile phones, this is about mobile data plans, and people in rural areas that probably don't have any other way of getting online.

          Did you read the parent post? The guy is claiming that "cell phones and internet access are pretty much not a privilege any more."

          That's a completely ridiculous statement. Mobile phones aren't a basic human right, no matter what Best Buy tells you.

          Rural communication, and the ripping off of the customers who bought equipment based off the (apparently fraudulent) statements made by Telus, are a different matter.

          You'd be foolish to spend millions to get back $150 in fees.

          Why does a simple issue of unfair fees have to go to the nation's highest court? And why does each individual who got ripped off have to pursue the issue separately?

          Telus would appeal any decision against it, and you bet your ass that any other company with simil

      • by PitaBred (632671)

        There's no small-claims court in Canada? I know that we have that here in the US, and it's great for smaller sums. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg to get a lawsuit started, and you can generally represent yourself fairly well.

        • Yes, there's a small-claims court for claims up to 25k. Telus would appeal if you won.

          If you lost, Telus would hand you a bill for their legal fees, which would be in the realm of thousands or tens of thousands.

          • Actually, I'd have to check the Rules, but I believe legal fees in Small Claims Court are capped at 15% of the value of the issue up for decision.

            (Also, the Rules are different from province to province- in... Alberta, BC, NWT, YT, and Nunavut, I believe, the max is 25,000 but in Ontario and Quebec, I think, it's $10,000.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ceoyoyo (59147)

      I don't think it is legal. I was hoping Bell and Telus customers would test that theory en masse by declaring their contracts null and void when B&T decided to charge for incoming texts. Unfortunately it doesn't sound like anyone has.

      If Fido ever sends me my iPhone, I'm looking forward to them pulling the no free incoming texts so I can enjoy my new contract-free iPhone.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fm6 (162816)

      They should just say "Here's what you are required to do... we can do as we damn well please."

      They do say that. They just don't say it clearly. The whole point of most consumer agreements is to say exactly that, but at great length and using very technical language. If nobody understand what you're saying, nobody can give you a hard time for saying it.

    • by pentalive (449155)
      You can opt out, then No service for you!
    • Is this even legal? Probably... can we change it?

      You could always try to, well negotiate. The companies put out crap terms because they know that most people will just take it or leave it and don't have the spine to actually try and haggle. If they don't want to negotiate and you don't like the deal then say 'NO' and walk away. Telling a sales person 'NO' and turning to walk out the door can sometimes break through their resistance to negotiations, but you have to be willing to walk away and play hardball to get what you want.

  • This is par for the course with Telus, a company that has had it knuckles rapped in the past for dreadful customer service.

  • by Petersko (564140) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @05:50PM (#24756965)
    The day I was able to say goodbye to my land line was a sweet day indeed. Telus managed to screw up everything I ever asked them to do.

    They're shady, unethical, and mostly incompetent. If it's at all possible to do so, just don't deal with them. Thankfully even rural areas are beginning to have better options.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by TheBig1 (966884)

      I hear you! I switched from my Telus landline to Shaw VOIP after Telus started charging an extra $5 / month because I *didn't* have a long distance plan.

      Before I was paying almost $30 / month for Telus with no features (no caller ID, VM, etc); now I am paying $20 on Shaw with some basic features, *plus* getting $8 off my broadband, for almost $20 / month savings.

      Add to that the fact that Shaw has always been excellent with their customer service, and this is a real no-brainer!

      Cheers

  • I got a full refund (Score:5, Informative)

    by SolarStorm (991940) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @05:53PM (#24756983)
    Complain! I did and they gave me a full refund for my air card (i bought it outright instead of the monthly plan) I then switched to Rogers. They had a sliding plan that works for me. It does smell and I will never use a telus service again due to the way they marketted this.
  • by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @05:55PM (#24757013) Homepage

    ...and possibly even some sort of charges brought against them by the government.

    These Telecoms are making WAY more money than they deserve. I don't know which would be worse -- a government run telco/internet service or letting the abusive service providers keep on abusing.

    I am really very fortunate where I live. T-Mobile is my wireless carrier and they didn't comply with US government requests for warrantless wiretaps, my cable internet is ridiculously faster than any other I have seen and nothing about my service is blocked. I'm afraid to move because I might get crappy service. I'm not sure how I would respond to some of the troubles other people experience or have reported here.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Alistar (900738)
      In Saskatchewan we have Sasktel, which is a crown corporation, government controlled. I won't say its perfect, or it's the cheapest (although its certainly comparable), but I have never had any problems with them. They have unlimited and it appears to be unlimited, I have never had service cut off or degraded. Some months I use it a lot, some months I don't. Heck, even on their basic plan, I could run servers (although it costs more to get static IPs) with no limitations (beyond that set out in the plan
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sentry21 (8183)

      Well, this being Canada, the general course of action is to complain to the CRTC and then get the CRTC to fuck Telus up pretty good. At least that's been my experience. The CRTC generally doesn't tend to let the big telcos dick around any more than the regulations allow, with preference given to the customer when there's ambiguity.

    • I submit that when you set yourself up as the judge on how much money a company "deserves" to make that you've crossed a line.

      I don't agree with what TELUS is doing here but I also cannot agree with judging how much money an entity deserves to make.

      • by erroneus (253617)

        When utilities like a telco get radio frequencies, the rights to set up wired networks, power lines, cable TV infrastructure or just about anything that requires government approval, that is "the people" granting permission to the commercial entities to set up a business.

        For them to take that permission and abuse customers in this and a multitude of other ways is simply the wrong thing to do... probably more than that since there are supposed to be regulations on what they can do with the resources and perm

    • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @06:26PM (#24757311)

      Telus used to be a government run telco. We never seemed to have any problems with the service and it was cheaper than it is now.

    • by XorNand (517466) *
      Why do people always cry for class actions? Lawyers get millions and you get a coupon for $4 off your next purchase. Worse, you're pretty much stuck with that coupon and are unable to press for other compensation unless you specifically opted out.

      A much better solution is to sue them in small claims court. It's very easy and cheap to do, and almost always gets the company's attention. If your suit has any merit, 9 times out of 10 they're just pay you off to avoid having to pay a $300/hr. lawyer to spen
    • by willy_me (212994)

      I don't know which would be worse -- a government run telco/internet service or letting the abusive service providers keep on abusing.

      How about a hybrid system? Imaging a government owned infrastructure rented out to various different providers. The reason for a government owned infrastructure is that due to the population density in various parts of Canada, it is not economically feasible to provide service. But a government mandate to provide equal service at break-even cost would solve this problem.

  • Its actually quite surprising that they just didn't just change the meaning of "unlimited" and left the customers with massive bills when without their knowledge they went 2 GB over limit.

    Its also surprising that people have been able to get online streaming or voice over ip working on their Telus cards, the ones we have in the office are pretty much just fast enough for email and very light web surfing.
  • by ivi (126837) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @06:40PM (#24757423)

    In Australia, an ISP's customers can complain to the Telecommunications Ombudsman (TIO).

    If the TIO considers that the complaint has merit (even -before- it is investigated & decided), the ISP must pay TIO a fee, upwards of Au$200.

    The TIO may then propose a solution that costs the ISP additional money, eg, if it has to compensate the customer for some loss of service, etc.

    An ISP would tend think twice, before dumping customers, with such fees hanging over their heads.

    Perhaps USA (and other places) needs such a mechanism, to keep ISPs a bit more honest...

    One thing to avoid: In Australia, an ISP is required to "join" TIO, but there have been some cases of ISP's failing to join; in these cases, the fees wouldn't apply, at least until the ISP is belatedly persuaded to join.

    To make this work, a large fine for failure to join should be part of the enabling legislation.

  • by nurb432 (527695)

    I lost an isp that way once a lONG time ago. I had a static IP on dial-up and they wanted it back so they made up a reason to dump me.

    One evening my modem was connected but no data activity. They said that violated the "unlimited use" clause, since i wasnt actually using it.

    Bastards.

  • Our telcos are just feeling left out. The American telcos are hogging all the limelight with their various antics leaving the Canadian telcos feeling all inferior so they're just trying to play with the big boys. How typically Canadian...
  • ...but what about the present????

    db

  • by Yuan-Lung (582630) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @07:00PM (#24757605)
    Dealing with telus for me was nothing but severe pain in the backside. They care nothing about customer satisfaction. They will screw you over and cheat you out of your money as much as they can, and when you finally leave, they then proceed to harass you with endless calls and try to con you into switching back with false incentives.


    Here is an example of their borderline criminal conduct. I used to subscribe to their home phone service. I had it on automatic payment (big mistake) One day, I noticed that my bill had been steadily increased from $30/mo for a single line to $40, $60, and then as high $80/mo for the past few months.

    I called them trying to sort it out. After several hours of navigating through the labyrinth of automated voice menu (no, 0 for operator did not work) I finally got put on hold for over an hour to speak with a human, and was cut off while waiting in the queue. After a few tries I finally got though, and got an explanation. Apparently, they had been taking the liberty to 'introduce new services' onto my account, without notifying me, and took my not noticing and canceling them a sign of agreement to adapt those service.

    They of course, refused to refund the charges because I had been 'enjoying the additional services' so I requested to cancel them on the spot. Apparently I could not do that either because I don't have this password somehow set on my account.

    While I was contemplating canceling the whole account and start over with a new number, with the hassle of informing all my contacts of a number change, Shaw called to promote their $25/mo digital line. So I switched. For the past year I have not paid over the $25/mo I agree to pay. There had not been additional features secretly added to my line.

    However, Telus was not happy about my switching. They called about 3 times a week asking me to switch back. Their call usually started with a pompous voice asking me to identify myself to them. They even demanded that I explained to them why I switched, to which their representatives received some colourful words from me and a request to never calling back again.

    Then they called again offering me ridiculous deals such as a comparatively lower 3-month INTRODUCTORY rate (and it would eventually go back up) if I switched my phone AND internet services to them. At this point, I started threatening with a harassment suit if they didn't stop calling. The call finally stopped.


    And you wonder why telus spends so much on their 'the future is friendly' PR campaign to tell people how well they treat their customers.
    • by Mitreya (579078)
      You should have considered doing a chargeback on your credit card for the extra amounts. They are not allowed to increase your services without a notification and rather than argue with them - I have gotten a charge-back honored even in a less obvious situation (where formally the service provider was correct, but I felt that they have been extremely and purposely misleading in their offer).

      It's a double win - you get your money back and the service provider/vendor feels the pinch.

  • ObVader (Score:5, Funny)

    by rossdee (243626) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @07:04PM (#24757647)

    "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

  • "You agree that, to maintain or improve the service, or for other business reasons, TELUS can in its sole discretion, suspend, restrict, modify or terminate all or any part of the service or make changes to the network and other facilities without notice to you."

    That looks pretty clear to me.

  • This is exactly what happened with early ADSL services. I signed up for an "unlimited" 1.5Mbit/sec ADSL account around 2001 in Melbourne Australia. Within a year or so the ISP (Primus Telecom) realised their terrible miscalculations and shut down that service, moving customers to limited accounts. However their original contract was worded in a way that this was expressly allowed.

    (Data for broadband, and colocation, in Australia is still many times more expensive than it is in North America.)

  • by Rudisaurus (675580) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @08:09PM (#24758347)
    I did. I was a long-time Telus Mobility customer. The recent change to charge for incoming texts was the final straw for me. I both called and wrote to Telus and got absolutely nowhere, so I'm now a VERY happy FIDO customer -- and so are most of my immediate family. When the haemorrhaging gets bad enough, Telus may straighten up.
  • by koalapeck (1137045) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @10:19PM (#24759615) Homepage
    Telus is a joke, no way I'd ever do business with them again.

    OTOH, a friend of mine lost his cell phone so I suggest calling up Telus with the intent to leave because they don't offer the iPhone to see what they might do(let's be clear, he doesn't want an iPhone, but we know this particular phone is going to receive some sort of response from the Telus rep.). Not mentioning the lost phone to them at this point, he proceeds to tell them that he would like one of them new-fangled iPhones that everyone is talking about. Telus rep says sorry we don't have that phone. So he says oh okay, I'd like to cancel my service then. They proceed to go through the big laminated list of reasons the iPhone is crap, and he just simply says yeah, that's fine, I'll just cancel, how much is it to buy out my contract?
    At this point they go ahead and offer him a new Blackberry Pearl at no charge, and he informs them that this wouldn't be sufficient and he'd still like to proceed with canceling his services. They step up to the plate again and offer him an unlimited data plan in addition to his current Telus package at no charge, for the balance of his contract (2 1/2 years).

    Of course, he accepts this offer. So, although I hate Telus, sometimes they serve their purpose, such as situations like the one above.

    Of course after he finishes talking with the Telus rep he proceeds to call them back immediately to report his lost phone so that it is deactivated.

    This was approximately a month and a half ago and so far so good, Telus is honouring their offer of unlimited data, and he's still paying the same $48.xx a month he was paying prior to this escapade, and enjoying his new Blackberry phone.
  • Contracts (Score:3, Informative)

    by phorm (591458) on Wednesday August 27, 2008 @10:33AM (#24765195) Journal

    My favorite issue with Telus was in dealing with contracts and their "bundled" bills.

    My grandparents signed up for internet with them, and supposedly for the first while the internet rates were lower than normal. After a while, they decided to cancel and move on to Shaw. When they called in to do so, Telus told them that they were locked in a (3 year I believe) contract.

    Now keep in mind, this is not like a cellular service. There's no documentation, no terms of service provided. The box that came with the DSL modem had only the usage manual. Nothing signed, and nothing anywhere stating a contract.

    According to the phone agent, the "contract" was presented in a click-through on the software used to setup the modem. However, in this case I was the one that setup the modem, and had done so through their webpage (not using the software CD, and not seeing any click-through contracts).

    Telus - of course - could not provide anything to support their "contact", but the rep actually told me "if you don't like it, take it to court." When I asked for their legal contact info, I was told for that I'd have to "get a lawyer, and have him figure it out."

    At the same time, Telus is also the local phone monopoly, so bills for ADSL and phone service are combined. I tried to get *those* separated so that I could at least deal with VISA about the DSL service without getting dinged for non-payment on the phone part. Telus will not separate the bills.

    I've had plenty of issues with Telus on my own, but this case was the worst. Trying to trick senior citizens into believing their into a contract without any corroboration is just plani evil (and I did check the old advertising for the plain, no contract was mentioned).

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Working...