Telus Kicks Customers Off Of Unlimited Plan It Sold Them Not Too Long Ago

from the how-dare-you-use-what-we-sold-you! dept

For the last few years, various connectivity providers sold “unlimited” data plans when the reality was the plans weren’t unlimited at all. Many providers are now changing the plans and instituting more clear caps, but it still seems a bit ridiculous to have marketed unlimited data plans and then pulled the rug out from under those who bought exactly what you sold them. Up in Canada, it seems that TELUS is taking it a step further. Not only did it sell people “unlimited” plans that it now regrets, it’s exercising some vague language in its contract that allows them to simply cancel the plans of those who had bought into the “unlimited” plan even just a short while ago. The company is forcing users to switch from a $75 unlimited plan to a $65 plan that is limited to just one GB per month, and dumping anyone who won’t switch. That would seem to be a pretty strong bait-and-switch claim. Sure, perhaps the telcos oversold these unlimited plans, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be required to live up to what they sold.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: telus

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Telus Kicks Customers Off Of Unlimited Plan It Sold Them Not Too Long Ago”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Michael Vilain (user link) says:

Aren't there consumer protection laws up in Canada?

This could be grounds for litigation here in the US. Clearly a bait-and-switch advertising tactic that TELUS is trying to correctly in a very bad way. Why isn’t some attorney going after the dumped customers and trying to create a class-action?

And why isn’t some agency of the Canadian government doing something about this? It’s clearly a very anti-consumer action. I’d love to see the entire Board of Directors and their lawyers spend time in jail over this, but I doubt that would happen.

Cynic says:

Right, I don’t see it as a legal issue so much as an indication that the company has its head so far up its you know what that it couldn’t see daylight if the sun went nova.

Don’t companies have any shame any more? Don’t their employees want to be able to tell their relatives and friends where they work without instantly apologizing? Don’t they want to have credibility enough to sell other plans in the future? Even amoral people may not want to burn all their bridges just for pragmatic reasons, and I would think companies should also worry.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: dial-up is better.

Indeed it is, and I’ll do the math for you:

(Note b = bit, B = byte [8 bits])

56 kilobits/sec = 56,000/8 = 7,000 Bytes/sec
420 KB/min
25.2 MB/hour
604.8 MB/day

That means, if you are always downloading at 56kb speed (it *is* an always-on connection, right??) you’ve exhausted your quota in… 1.6 days?

18.144 GB/month if always on, operating at 56kb speed.

Unless something is terribly wrong with my math, which is possible, this smells like ultra-rip off.

TW Burger (profile) says:

What does Greed, stupidity, ignorance, dishonestly and a license to do it result in?

Telus is the telecommunications infrastructure monopoly for much of Canada. This gives them license to do almost anything they want as long as they still provide a required minimum level of service.

This is a typical behavior for Telus. They had, until they were recently ordered not to by the CRTC, been charging a $2.95 per month “long distance access charge” if a customer had long distance service through another carrier. They are now being warned about a change in customer’s cell phone plans that charges cell phone subscribers for incoming text messages starting August 2008.

The basic problem is that the people running Telus seem to be as incredibly ignorant as they seem to be dishonest. I’ve spoken to some of the technical employees at Telus and they all have the same general opinion: Telus management is all about making money and do not have any consideration for employees, clients, or improving services other than what will create profit in the short run.

The unlimited plan idea was not a bad one. Unlimited Internet access volume is something many users would like to have. However, it would seem, given the low $75 per month charge, that this was a bait and switch tactic. If it wasn’t then it was a marketing plan created by ignorance of and apathy for knowing the technology involved, combined with blind avarice. It does not matter if it was dishonest or just looks dishonest, it’s the same effect.

If just one manager had asked a technical team if Telus’s infrastructure could handle the potential volume they would have been told that a cap would have to be placed on the plan, service volume would need to be increased, or more charged to lower demand. Probably all three should have been done in the first place.

The problem seems to be that a culture of general distrust has been created in the Telus corporate hierarchy between senior management and workers. This is combined with decisions that a designed to benefit stock pricing with senior management making a large amount of compensation through stock options.

Much of the blame for Telus’s series of apparent consumer back stabbings has been placed upon the Telus CEO Darren Entwistle. A Web site describing some complaints about his actions are available here:

Given the consumer outrage, Entwistle’s enormous salary ($14M in 2005), the drop in Telus stock prices ($C 40.93 with a prediction of $43 – down from last year’s high of $65.05), new competition, and an apparent complete lack of vision past a current quarter profits, the future may be friendly, but it would seem not for Telus employees, customers, or stock holders.

ToySouljah says:

Re: Re:

2-3 days? lol…I’d be over the cap in about 25 minutes. Is that for real or was it a typo? 1 GB/month is barely enough for just reading websites and so you could forget about watching any videos (for too long anyways). 1GB/day would be slightly better, but not at that price. I pay $45 right now for unlimited through Time Warner, but I subscribe just to Road Runner since I heard that if I switch to one of their bundle packages that I’d be capped at 200GB/month. On average I go through about 300 to 400GB/month (at least what is shown from my usenet account). To date I have not had a problem with Road Runner and hopefully they continue to offer their plan the way it is now. I’ve used RR for about 8 years now and would hate to have to switch.

mad dog (profile) says:

canada-unlimited plans

Do any of us read the fine print on what we are agreeing to anymore? They have all and any rights and we have absolutely none. They can do and change anything they want and we have to agree not to file for damage or to file at all.Now that’s in this country with our excess of lawyers with no other income except to go after companies with more money than they do. WE HAVE NO RIGHTS. We signed them away.

Killer_Tofu (profile) says:

Could be a bright side

You know how the cell phone peoples love to issue phones for extremely cheap for signing up for their service? Wouldn’t this really have been an awesome way to get one of those subsidized phones for free / uber cheap, and then because they canceled it, they cannot charge you for early termination. End result, practically free phone!

Anonymous Coward says:

The reality is that TELUS (to spell it the way they like to), Bell, Rogers and the rest will continue this until the regulator (in Canada the CRTC) comes down on them which will never happen because they don’t want to regulate cell service.

Rather like the FCC doesn’t really want to in the States.

Somewhere along the way the regulators got into bed with the regulated and forgot that they’re supposed to be there to protect the consumer from things like this and enforce things like quality of service.

The CRTC, of course, will tell you that cell service isn’t a monopoly so it doesn’t need the sort of regulation that the monopoly land line service does which tends to overlook a number of realities that consumers deal with.

TELUS was crazy to offer an unlimited data plan for cell service that their plant simply could not sustain or, truth be known, even begin to offer.

It’s what happens all too often in TELUS when sales and marketing decide to offer something that isn’t possible or sustainable from a technical point of view without a huge investment Telus isn’t prepared to make.

And yeah, the contract you sign when you get your cell phone has a clause in it that says something to the effect of “our rights — unlimited; your rights — pay the bill and shut up”.

RoMu says:

Matt - Verizon?

It’s true. After a nine month investigation the Office of the Attorney General of New York issued a press release regarding the deceptive marketing practices employed by Verizon

see the full press release here

“Unlimited” plans had hidden restrictions. Verizon marketed its NationalAccess and BroadbandAccess service plans to consumers nationwide as “Unlimited” despite the plans’ limitations. In fact, the plans only permitted limited activities such as web browsing, email and intranet access. Customers who used their plans for common activities such as downloading movies and video or even playing video games online, were unwittingly in violation of the terms and conditions of their service agreements.

“Excessive use” of Unlimited Plans resulted in abrupt terminations. Verizon Wireless terminated heavy internet users claiming that the high levels of usage could only have been attained by activities, such as “streaming or downloading movies and video” prohibited by the terms and conditions. These usage restrictions were not clearly and conspicuously disclosed to consumers and directly contradicted the promise of “unlimited” service. Customers found their accounts abruptly terminated for excessive use, leaving them without internet services and unable to obtain refunds for their wireless access cards and cell phones.

Telus is doing the same thing.

RoMu says:

The Big Gotcha!

Telus accusing the unlimited contract holders of violating the terms of service.

Specifically, Telus reps cite section 5 of the terms where it states that the service is not to be used for streaming multi-media.

Section 5 of the Telus Service Terms states:

“You will use the service for customary voice, messaging and wireless data purposes only. You will not use the service for multi-media streaming, voice over internet protocol; or any other application which uses excessive network capacity or may otherwise adversely impact other users, that is not made available to you by Telus Mobility.”

Yet, on the Telus website that promotes the EVDO High Speed network it states:

“The TELUS Wireless High Speed network allows for fast and reliable Internet connections.

This opens the door for a variety of services such as streaming video and other multimedia applications.

Mobile professionals will be able to get broadband-like connections to corporate Intranets, e-mail servers, the Internet, and other online services.”

So how do you violate the terms of service if you are told that’s what the service allows you to do?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...