A letter from Dave on the infamous $40 for 4GB price change

[Dave_M]

Hey Community,

I am writing to you today to let you know that we will not be moving forward with a price increase on the infamous “$40 for 4GB” plan ($120 90-day Province-Wide Talk + Text + 12GB Data), contrary to the SMS that customers on that plan received yesterday.

After sending out an offer to select customers, we heard your feedback loud and clear: we said no surprises, and we surprised you. While all good things must come to an end at some point – that point is not today. As a brand, we have always been proud of our transparency, and of our commitment to our customers. We are sincerely sorry for any frustration caused and we want you to know that this has been a learning experience for us all.

We have been reminded that you, our customers, are vocal and passionate. We’ve seen how much some of you love Public Mobile and we’ve also seen how many of you like the added value that our sister brand, Koodo, has to offer. To that end, we are happy to say that the Koodo offer that our Public customers on the “$40 for 4GB” plan received still remains available for anyone who wishes to take advantage of it.

Thank you for your continued support,

Dave

[mated3]

Not quite a reply, but interesting item

----------------

From Reddit – A judge of a Toronto small claims court has ruled that Bell can’t promise a price and then change it. The ruling comes after a Bell customer in Toronto took the telecom giant to small claims court after he was promised a monthly price for 24 months in a verbal contract, but then sent in an email a contract that said that prices were subject to change and that Bell was planning to increase its price for internet service by $5 two months later. This has been an ongoing complaint for not just Bell customers, but Rogers and Telus customers as well, and Canadian contract lawyers told the CBC that this decision could lead to a much grander class action suit. According to one lawyer, consumers should feel very confident, and this argument could be used to win one big class action suit against the telecoms.

[Smartin_20]

Hi @Dave_M,

We spent a considerable amount of time and energy finding Public Mobile and then moving legacy Rogers and Telus and Bell accounts over to you. 

While Darren has declared the overarching approach to be that of moving customers up the brand chain, this attempted push was very much unwelcome.

Next time your boss has an idea, give that to us to ponder for feedback up the chain. 

While we are enjoying your static pricing, we are searching for reasonable alternatives to Telus and their subsidiaries. Make no mistake; I’d rather be back at Bell and Rogers. 

Try not to anger loyal customers more; you’ve lost our trust.

Regards,

Sarah, Dan and Pat. 

[srlawren]

---

@Raglandkentwrote:

what good thing about public coming to and end

---

@Raglandkent eventually, the 2016 Fall Promo pricing will go up, just not yet.  That's the short answer to your question.

EDIT:  see here for more details:  https://productioncommunity.publicmobile.ca/t5/Announcements/A-letter-from-Dave-on-the-infamous-40-f...

[Raglandkent]

what good thing about public coming to and end

[koimr1]

---

@Korthwrote:

@koimr1

We'll never know whether PM would have chosen to backstep from their price hike without the threat of CCTS involvement.  The customer uproar flared up and died down quickly enough ... this letter from Dave declared PM's (new) decision the following day.  I think this entire fiasco would've simmered down completely if Koodo wasn't invited to introduce distractions and complications while passions were still high.  But we can only speculate.

We'll also never know whether CCTS attention would've been favourable while addressing the (1600-ish) customer complaints about this issue.  Their public response seemed more chiding than supportive, they made it clear that they don't approve of bypassing CCTS procedures through this new high-volume internet tantrum campaign style, indeed they would normally dismiss such complaints automatically (which effectively defaults to favouring the carrier, not the customer).  But again, we can only speculate.

I'd like to think that PM would've responded to customer feedback without this escalation.  They've responded to customer demands feedback before, they've backed down from unpopular decisions before.  But I can only speculate.

---

Oh, I'm well aware of all that. I even see that CCTS has a blog post up about the whole incident and the tone is, as you say, chiding.

Personally I think it was the bad PR rather than the CCTS complaints that got them to reconsider.

Reading CCTS Procedural Code Sep 2017 isn't the most encouraging document for us consumers either - all they can do is uphold the Wireless Code.

Oh well - a moot point for now.

[kwandar]

A little off topic, but  politicians are not selling goods and services, but instead using puffery to have you vote for them.  There is a distinction.  Read Section 52 of the Competition Act. 

[ShawnC13]

---

@kwandarwrote:

I have lots of faith I could obtain enforcement under the Competition Act.  It is very clear cut, with little wiggle room.  I'm not too worried about that.

I also ensure my MP knows exactly who I am, and he does.  I'd have action on the file.  

Being in breach of a contract is not the same as false and misleading advertising.  One is easily enforceable and criminal in nature.

---

Ok then so what about our elected officials who mislead us with their "advertising" to get elected?  Glad your MP knows who you are has he fulfilled all of his marketing promises or atleast not change them?  If he hasn't ask him to get the Phoneix fiasco fixed for us that need to be paid for the work we are doing

[Korth]

@koimr1

We'll never know whether PM would have chosen to backstep from their price hike without the threat of CCTS involvement.  The customer uproar flared up and died down quickly enough ... this letter from Dave declared PM's (new) decision the following day.  I think this entire fiasco would've simmered down completely if Koodo wasn't invited to introduce distractions and complications while passions were still high.  But we can only speculate.

We'll also never know whether CCTS attention would've been favourable while addressing the (1600-ish) customer complaints about this issue.  Their public response seemed more chiding than supportive, they made it clear that they don't approve of bypassing CCTS procedures through this new high-volume internet tantrum campaign style, indeed they would normally dismiss such complaints automatically (which effectively defaults to favouring the carrier, not the customer).  But again, we can only speculate.

I'd like to think that PM would've responded to customer feedback without this escalation.  They've responded to customer demands feedback before, they've backed down from unpopular decisions before.  But I can only speculate.

[kwandar]

I have lots of faith I could obtain enforcement under the Competition Act.  It is very clear cut, with little wiggle room.  I'm not too worried about that.

I also ensure my MP knows exactly who I am, and he does.  I'd have action on the file.  

Being in breach of a contract is not the same as false and misleading advertising.  One is easily enforceable and criminal in nature.

[ShawnC13]

---

@kwandarwrote:

With all due respect to the last part of your argument, while the CRTC rules allow increases, the fact remains that they would have made false claims, and are then in violation of the Competition Act.  There are lots of things you are able to do, but it doesn't mean there aren't repercussions.  The CRTC does not overrule unfair competition and the Competition Act.

An loss under the Competition Act, to the government also means a class action lawsuit you'd have a hard time losing (as it would have been proven) and significant damages.

---

If a promise overrides a ToS we allagreed to I would be shocked.  If that was the case couldn't we sue every politician on their campaign (marketing) promises before the election and by voting for them we are agreeing to a ToS to have them govern us for a set amount of time. 

I have little faith in the Government be able to enforce anything.  They are in breach of probably all of their public service contracts for not paying employees correctly (Phoenix).  Hard to be the law of the land when you don't follow it yourself.

Sorry for the side rant.

[koimr1]

---

@kwandarwrote:

With all due respect to the last part of your argument, while the CRTC rules allow increases, the fact remains that they would have made false claims, and are then in violation of the Competition Act.  There are lots of things you are able to do, but it doesn't mean there aren't repercussions.  The CRTC does not overrule unfair competition and the Competition Act.

An loss under the Competition Act, to the government also means a class action lawsuit you'd have a hard time losing (as it would have been proven) and significant damages.

---

I'm NOT making an argument for it - I feel they shouldn't have promised something knowing they could get out of it.

All I said is that the Wireless Code allows them do what they tried to do. The rest of what you wrote is what the CCTS would've had to consider had it continued.

[pakmode]

I switched over yesterday in store as well. 

Sad to leave PM, but the offer from Koodo was just too good to pass up. 

With all the points/gift card deals this weekend, it was an offer I could not refuse. 

If anybody needs a Koodo referral let me know by sending a direct message. 

[kwandar]

With all due respect to the last part of your argument, while the CRTC rules allow increases, the fact remains that they would have made false claims, and are then in violation of the Competition Act.  There are lots of things you are able to do, but it doesn't mean there aren't repercussions.  The CRTC does not overrule unfair competition and the Competition Act.

An loss under the Competition Act, to the government also means a class action lawsuit you'd have a hard time losing (as it would have been proven) and significant damages.

[koimr1]

---

@Kattzwrote:

---

There is no point in arguing with these people who are standing up for Public Mobile anymore . If someone thinks that it is OK to sell a service with a promise of no price increase then bury language in a long user agreement that says the company can a increase prices at any time, there is something fundamentally wrong with the way that that person thinks. It's fraud. You know it . I know it. Consumers aren't expected to be lawyers and wade through pages of legalese when making a simple purchase. That's why the CRTC created all of these new rules for the telecom companies in the first place. 

---

---

No one is standing up for them and saying it's ok. Classic straw-man.

I've seen nothing but universal condemnation of it. I totally agree they should not have made promises knowing they had a way-out if they wanted.

The fact still remains - the CRTC rules you just mentioned gives them the ability to change plan terms with 30 days notice. They backed off with all the CCTS complaints but legally, as it stands now, they would've been able to do it. The interesting thing would be what might've happened if PM didn't back down and the complaints process continued.

[Kattz]

---

@kwandarwrote:

"That’s not a guarantee"

It is either a guarantee, or false and misleading advertising under the Competition Act, with a class action lawsuit after the government finds them guilty.

 This has been going on for weeks now . I agree with you .I watched an interesting segment on CBC's Marketplace . It was a similar situation where Bell had salespeople going door-to-door and promising no price increases, then burying language deep in the user agreement that allowed Bell to increase prices . Nothing has been done yet besides shutting down the sales campaign .But, a consumer advocate lawyer commented. He said that companies have been prosecuted under the competition act for promising no price increases then including language in the user agreement that allowed price increases. The promise of no price increases wasn't even in writing in Bell's case. Marketplace got onto the sales team and used hidden cameras to record the sales reps promising no price increases in order to close sales .

There is no point in arguing with these people who are standing up for Public Mobile anymore . If someone thinks that it is OK to sell a service with a promise of no price increase then bury language in a long user agreement that says the company can a increase prices at any time, there is something fundamentally wrong with the way that that person thinks. It's fraud. You know it . I know it. Consumers aren't expected to be lawyers and wade through pages of legalese when making a simple purchase. That's why the CRTC created all of these new rules for the telecom companies in the first place. 

Here's the link to the Marketplace segment . If you don't want to click on the link, search for misleading sales tactics Bell services Marketplace on YouTube. 

https://youtu.be/grU3esNMntU

 See how wrong it looks? 

---

[Wonder_why]

Liars liars pant on fire 😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄😄

[kwandar]

"That’s not a guarantee"

It is either a guarantee, or false and misleading advertising under the Competition Act, with a class action lawsuit after the government finds them guilty.

[Rockdaddy22]

That’s not a guarantee 

[kwandar]

There is a price guarantee - read last bullet point from Public Mobile:

Tags (1)

[kwandar]

[kwandar]

Dear Dave:

Read Public Mobile's previous words to its customers on this plan.   Pay attention to the last bullet point.  Care to address that, given what you're saying now, within the context of that last point, where we were told OUR PRICES WOULD NOT INCREASE UNDER THIS PLAN IF WE KEPT IT ACTIVE? 

[kwandar]

[kwandar]

[computergeek541]

---

@tom3204wrote:

Ahh the good ol' days of the System Access Fee and then Rogers' even more shady "Government Regulatory Recovery Fee"...

---

The GRRF name sound so much like a government fee that they actually had to use a disclaimer saying that it wasn't.  I saw that as a deliberate attempt to mislead and/or confuse people.

[tom3204]

Ahh the good ol' days of the System Access Fee and then Rogers' even more shady "Government Regulatory Recovery Fee"...

[MK78]

I think they call from their local Koodo kiosks, the guy that called me said come to Cedarbrea Mall (the Koodo closest to me), we have your information...

[Sergey]

They started to call me from 289-597-6799 and push to change my plan.

It is son creazy

[ToniCipriani]

---

@Jonavinwrote:

I'm less surprised that it happened but more surprised that they have to guts to do it 1 year into the plan.

---

That's part of the problem IMO. Because in addition to the plan itself, it was sold on promises for loyalty rewards. Essentially the increase nullifies all that when most just started getting it.

[whysoserious]

.

[Cathyd]

Is this deal still available. I was going  to go to Walmart and sign up. But I don't see this deal in plans or promotion. I had it on Facebook but I can't find it now.

[Jonavin]

There was never any price guarantees from any carrier. In the old days, even when you were on 3 yr contract they would find a way to slowly increase the Call Display, or VM fees, or the System Access fees. If not that, then the overage rates for minutes would go up or the long distance cost would go up. This could amount to as much as a 30% increase over the 3 years.

I'm less surprised that it happened but more surprised that they have to guts to do it 1 year into the plan.

[will13am]

---

@Rockdaddy22wrote:

And you don’t think Koodo will ever raise prices?

---

I have had a number of interactions with Koodo customer service reps already.  At every opportunity and when I remember, I always ask them as an aside what the price stability is like with Koodo.  Can prices be increased like what happened with Public Mobile.  Like bots, every agent has said oh no, only you can change your rate plan.  I would always clarify the contents of a particular plan is something Koodo will not change on me without my direction to do so.  However, the price is not an element of the rate plan and can be subject to change per terms of service.  Then they would play back the same tape, we won't change the rate plan on you.  Argh.

Every carrier has the same or very similar terms of service which gives them every right to change anything they want when they want with prior notice.  Koodo's terms of service says under can Koodo change the terms of service.

"Yes, Koodo has the right to change any of the terms that are outlined in your Agreement, except those covered by the Price Guarantee, which we will not change without your consent.  Before we make any changes, we will give you at least thirty days' written notice, by bill message, text message or email.". 

Nowhere does any carrier provide a price guarantee, except in case of a contract over a specified period where all terms of the contract are maintained. 

[Anonymous]

@ShayeS, no customers are bing lost.  Both Public Mobile and Koodo are owned by Telus.