SMS Alert: Class Action Suit Filed Against Bell, Telus

Bell and Telus announceed earlier this month that each would begin charging customers without a packaged plan for received text messages in addition to sent ones. The decision has now spurred a class-action lawsuit by a man in Quebec who says the change requires a change in the terms of one's contract.

If you're signed up with a locked in agreement with either carrier, and have selected your desired plan option, the Quebec man is arguing that the carrier is not permitted to change the terms of said plan until the contract has ended. Charging per text message received is a new condition to the plan. Customers from both carriers, as well as GSM carrier Rogers Wireless, have always paid to send text messages.

The charges don't apply to people who already have a text messaging bundle, or add one to, their existing plan. For example, Bell customers can get 100 text messages for $5/mo.

At the time both carriers made their decision, Industry Minister Jim Prentice openly expressed his disdain, calling it a "poorly thought-out decision", and asking the President of both companies to meet with him in Ottawa prior to August 8 to discuss the issue.

"While I have no desire to interfere with the day-to-day business decisions of two private companies," Prentice said back in early July, "I do have a duty as Minister of Industry to protect the interests of the consuming public when necessary."

I find it strange that, as e-mail and MMS continue to gain popularity among phone users, undoubtedly resulting in increased revenues for carriers, Bell and Telus would decide to nickel and dime the occassional users. Meanwhile, both conpanies offer unlimited data plans to smartphone users that browse the web and check e-mail, essentially awarding the heavy users. The situation is oddly contradictory to Bell's Internet "traffic shaping" issues, whereby the company allegedly slows down the services of heavy Internet and peer-to-peer users to appease those who don't engage in such activity.

On the one hand, charging for receiving SMS messages might help to encourage those who aren't very interested in anything but voice to partake in features like text messaging more often. But on the other, it might deter people from using the functions altogether, choosing to just stick to voice, and revert to their laptops and home PCs for communicating via text.

Unlimited data or not (the answer being "not"), Rogers certainly has a leg up on the two CDMA carriers when it comes to good, ol' reliable texting.

Bell, Telus Will Charge to Receive Text Messages

According to reports, while the negative rate plan spotlight is currently being shone on Rogers Wireless for its decision not to offer an unlimited data plan for the iPhone, both Bell and Telus are trying to slip a fast one past the media's radar. Both carriers cleverly (and stratetically) announced they would offer an unlimited data plan for smartphones, including two new touch-screen models similar to the iPhone. But less than a week later, each more quietly announced that they would begin charging customers without a text messaging bundle for receiving SMSs.

Currently, it costs $0.15 to send a text message, but it's free to receive them. While $0.15/received message doesn't sound like a lot in the grand scheme of things (after all, heavy finger-happy users will probably already have a bundle plan), it does add up.

I don't consider myself to be a heavy text messager, but I do send a few every now and then when I don't have the time to chat, or in response to a message sent to me. Usually, it will add up to about $2 additonal bucks per month, which I've learned to live with. If this now doubles to $4 every month; or potentially even more counting finger-happy friends that are on the Rogers network (it is still free to send text messages through Rogers), I could be looking at more than I bargained for some months; or be forced to buy a bundle and then pay for something I don't use half the time. What's more, this will just be another nickel-and-dime fee to add with the rest, like "System Access Fee", and even hefty charges for voice mail: somehow mine has increased by $3 in the past few years without my ever being notified about it!)

If this move is in an effort to cover costs associated with heavy text usage, I don't see how it will work. What will likely happen will be that people sign up for these bundles, then start texting more often to justify the extra cost, resulting in even more usage (and more money in the carrier's pocket).

Bell's new text messaging charges will come into effect on August 8 and Telus' on August 24. Both will charge $0.15/received message.

According to the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA), Canadians send 43.5 million text messages per day. By my count, that equates to $6.5 million per day. Do carriers really need to charge more?

Air Canada Can Now Send a Boarding Pass to Your Mobile Phone

Did you know that you can now check-in for an Air Canada flight using your mobile phone, and receive a boarding pass in the form of a text message? Yep. Just show airport security the SMS, and proceed to baggage check and the screening area.

Air Canada says that most new mobile devices are compatible with the 2-D barcode technology required for the service to work. All you need to do is log onto http://www.mobile.aircanada.com/ from the device, and enter your details: name, destination, and credit card, Aeroplan, or booking reference number. If your flight qualifies for an electronic boarding pass, you simply enter your mobile phone number, and voila! Here comes your boarding pass via SMS!

The service is now available for all domestic Canadian and international Air Canada and Jazz flights. It's oddly not available for U.S. destinations.

This sounds really neat, but I hope it actually works without hassle. I also wonder how easy it would be for someone to duplicate an SMS boarding pass in order to get through security. How does the security officer verify that the SMS is legit and not a bogus copy? It's worth noting that I tried to access the Web address listed above and it doesn't seem to be functioning. I hope that's not an indication of how well the service will work in the long run!