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?

Bell Won't Back Down, Says Traffic Shaping a Must

A few weeks ago, the issue arose of Bell Canada engaging in Internet traffic "shaping" practices. Bell admits to purposely slowing down the Internet connection for heavy users of P2P and similar sites that are doing things like downloading full-length movies, and thus gobbling up a lot of bandwidth. Since then, there has been a flurry of commentary about the topic. Should Bell be able to shape or "throttle" its traffic? Should the use of P2P and torrent sites be considered "abuse" of Bell's unlimited plans?

The Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP), which represents many small ISPs that use Bell's network to offer their services, sent a request to the CRTC for Bell to stop its shaping activities. The CAIP claims that Bell is "in breach of a number of regulated activites", and called the behaviour "anti-competitive interference in the activities of Internet users." Bell's response was a big fat "no". The telecommunications company feels that slowing down P2P and BitTorrent use is necessary in order to improve overall bandwidth performance for all users. Interestingly, when speaking to CBCNews.ca, Primus President Ted Chislett, who agrees with the CAIP, said that he doubts Bell has any congestion issues related to bandwidth at all.

Assuming issues of traffic congestion do exist as a result of heavy bandwidth usage, does Bell have the right to slow things down? After all, these customers pay the same monthly fees that everyone else does; they're just using the services more. The situation can be likened to an unlimited cell phone data plan: some users might send hundreds of e-mails per month, and chat on the phone for hundreds and hundreds of hours, while others might send a couple of e-mails here and there, and chat less frequently. They're both paying the same monthly fee, but what they get out of their packaged plan is up to them.

In fairness, trying to curb illegal activity is a good thing: if someone is using up gross amounts of bandwidth to acquire loads and loads of illegal content, then really, who are they to complain about slow speeds? But it looks as though P2P and BitTorrent sites can, and are, also used for legitimate activities. Take CBC's recent experimental move, for example, to offer the TV show Canada's Next Great Prime Minister as a free download through BitTorrent. The CAIP reports that it took "thousands of fans" on Bell's network upwards of 11 hours to download the program versus the minutes it should have taken. If more and more legitimate content like this CBC show becomes available via BitTorrent and P2P sites, will Bell stop its traffic shaping activity?

Either way, this issue has initiated a well-needed discussion about regulation and control of the Internet, and opened people's eyes to the rapidly growing nature of the Web world as a whole. We have so much bandwidth, and people will only continue to want to use more of it, not less. Should those who are making frequent use of faster speeds, and thus justifying continued progress in this area, be punished for doing so? Or, on the contrary, are heavy bandwidth users just abusing the capabilities of the service, and ruining the experience for everyone else?