CCTS Just called me.....

[Gimli]

they referenced the text from Public Mobile and asked if it would be okay to close the case given that Public Mobile has decided not to move forward...

I said sure, but to expect another if they tried to pull this BS again.

They fully expect to if they do again.

get ready - I think that they are going to call everyone.

[spaceman]

hey

I have 4G/LTE service, even though PM does offer 3G plans at this time. The $120/12 gb plan was for 4G/LTE. As far as my understanding, Koodo and PM share the Telus towers. There really shouldn't be a difference in service.

I am held up on US roaming between Koodo and PM. Koodoo offers $7/day roaming vs PM $20 bucks for 10 days I believe.

[crazycolby]

thank you for the update.

[Korth]

@computergeek541

No different from cops policing the street.  If they see a crime or a criminal then they'll make a move.  If they're responding to a complaint then they'll smooth it out but they can't (and won't) do anything to move it forward unless there's a clear accusation of a clear crime/injustice/violation against a clear target.

I do agree that the CCTS is not entire impartial.  But they aren't going to pursue a case which doesn't (in their opinion) have much merit or consequence beyond being logged into their own statistics.  If the complainant doesn't convince them there's merit then they'll say some polite things, maybe send out a few letters, and clear the complaint off their desk.

[computergeek541]

---

@Korthwrote:

---

@computergeek541wrote: 

I gave it because I just didn't feel like the continued argument about it, especially when the CCTS case officer did not seem to have my back in the least, so there really was not point. 

---

The CCTS is a "neutral" party.  They exist to serve wireless consumers.  They also exist to serve wireless companies.  They aren't motivated to keep fighting battles or imposing penalties and restrictions without clear objectives, their primary mission is to just keep the stream of wireless business flowing peacefully at both ends.

---

That's the thing.  I'm not really sure how impartial they are.  There seems to some talk and doubt among consumers about what CCTS's true goals are an where their loyalties lie.

[Korth]

---

@computergeek541wrote: 

I gave it because I just didn't feel like the continued argument about it, especially when the CCTS case officer did not seem to have my back in the least, so there really was not point. 

---

The CCTS is a "neutral" party.  They exist to serve wireless consumers.  They also exist to serve wireless companies.  They aren't motivated to keep fighting battles or imposing penalties and restrictions without clear objectives, their primary mission is to just keep the stream of wireless business flowing peacefully at both ends.

[computergeek541]

---

@will13amwrote:

---

@computergeek541wrote:

When CCTS asks you for permission to close a case, I read into that as pretty much them saying that they won't find in your favor if you don't agree to it. 

Back in the the day before the Wireless Code existed, it was common place for carrier not to refund prorated unused portions of a month after porting out.  However, if you complained directly to the carrier, I believe that they usually just gave you a refund anyway. In the case of Fido, they just flat-out refused to do to this for me, and I filed a CCTS complaint on the premise that they shouldn't legally be allowed to charge for service that isn't going to be provided.

CCTS phoned me and told me that they would go by whatever it said it the terms of service and they would not question the legality of charging for service that the carrier doesn't provide.  They then asked for my permission to close to the case.  I knew full well, that they were really likely saying that they were going to find in favor of the carrier.

---

I am not a lawyer, so I don't profess to know carrier ToSs inside out.  If these cases are so straightforward, then why does the CCTS not just tell us they rule in favor of the carrier as they are merely acting in accordance with the ToS.  Why are we asked to officially close the case?  I remember the Rogers dead air time shenanigan.  I took them to the CCTS once over that.  Rogers called me and gave me a refund as a solution for case closure.  Anyway, accept closure if you think the case should be closed.  If you think there are loose ends still, voice the concerns. 

---

Yeah - the dead air charge was thought of as so unfair by the customers that there was pretty much no choice but for it to be banned and specifically mentioned in the Wireless Code.

I gave in because I just didn't feel like the continued argument about it, especially when the CCTS case officer did not seem to have my back in the least, so there really was not point.  I person may have just not wanted to put in the extra work should I said that I wanted the case to remain open.  In the end, the black mark against Rogers in the yearly statistics and the fact that complaints such as this from mutiple people helped to now make this dead air charge essentially illegal is worth more as a whole than the $50 or so that Fido feel stole from me.

[bumpark]

---

@spacemanwrote:

Hey guys,

Wondering if anyone else recieved a cold call from Koodo and wanting to have you come to their store to port your number out to them?

I got one today with the offer of transferring out to them and going over the plan that is being offered.

---

I did...

Here's my post in another thread:

I was thinking the same thing...

And coincidentally, a rep from Koodoo just called me and asked if I wanted to switch over.

His selling points:

• it's $40/month vs. $120 quarterly lump sum (not a factor for me, it's in fact better with the rewards and data rollover);
• the Koodoo deal expires this Saturday, Feb 24 (which isn't the deadline mentioned in the infamous text);
• any leftover prepaid balance would be transferred over (I suppose that equates to the $100 credit);
• you could get a new phone (yeah...sure...with a contract);

And these ones made me think.

The rep said that:

• PM is 3G and not LTE;
• PM's network is garbage, Koodoo's is better.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I told him he was incorrect.

The plan I'm on (the fall promo $120/12GB) is LTE and not 3G (maybe he was foreshadowing)?

And that PM and Koodoo share the same towers and transmitters.  So the hardware is shared but sure, the software could be different.

[Acekiller]

Good to hear that CCTS cares!

[kevin_camera]

I also got the call but wasn't able to pick up.

They just need to close the cases and move on.  I have no doubt that they can do anything for us even if PM decided to not revert the increase in pricing anyways.

Neither CCTS nor PM wants to deal with each of the complaints one by one (both parties are probably mandated to do so, which will cost PM way more than $10/month to deal with this).  My guess is the "head" of both organizations decided to back pedal the plans to keep the complains down for now.

[torontokris]

---

@will13amwrote:

---

@computergeek541wrote:

---

I am not a lawyer, so I don't profess to know carrier ToSs inside out.  If these cases are so straightforward, then why does the CCTS not just tell us they rule in favor of the carrier as they are merely acting in accordance with the ToS.  Why are we asked to officially close the case?  I remember the Rogers dead air time shenanigan.  I took them to the CCTS once over that.  Rogers called me and gave me a refund as a solution for case closure.  Anyway, accept closure if you think the case should be closed.  If you think there are loose ends still, voice the concerns. 

---

Because they cant just close the case. They didnt do any research or investigation. There was no official resolution NOR decision yet. However they can call and see how many cases voluntarily they can close right off the bat (as Public announced they wont increase the price). They dont want to waste time looking into 1600 cases if the complainants will say oh nevermind Public cancelled the increase.

[will13am]

---

@computergeek541wrote:

When CCTS asks you for permission to close a case, I read into that as pretty much them saying that they won't find in your favor if you don't agree to it. 

Back in the the day before the Wireless Code existed, it was common place for carrier not to refund prorated unused portions of a month after porting out.  However, if you complained directly to the carrier, I believe that they usually just gave you a refund anyway. In the case of Fido, they just flat-out refused to do to this for me, and I filed a CCTS complaint on the premise that they shouldn't legally be allowed to charge for service that isn't going to be provided.

CCTS phoned me and told me that they would go by whatever it said it the terms of service and they would not question the legality of charging for service that the carrier doesn't provide.  They then asked for my permission to close to the case.  I knew full well, that they were really likely saying that they were going to find in favor of the carrier.

---

---

@computergeek541wrote:

When CCTS asks you for permission to close a case, I read into that as pretty much them saying that they won't find in your favor if you don't agree to it. 

Back in the the day before the Wireless Code existed, it was common place for carrier not to refund prorated unused portions of a month after porting out.  However, if you complained directly to the carrier, I believe that they usually just gave you a refund anyway. In the case of Fido, they just flat-out refused to do to this for me, and I filed a CCTS complaint on the premise that they shouldn't legally be allowed to charge for service that isn't going to be provided.

CCTS phoned me and told me that they would go by whatever it said it the terms of service and they would not question the legality of charging for service that the carrier doesn't provide.  They then asked for my permission to close to the case.  I knew full well, that they were really likely saying that they were going to find in favor of the carrier.

---

I am not a lawyer, so I don't profess to know carrier ToSs inside out.  If these cases are so straightforward, then why does the CCTS not just tell us they rule in favor of the carrier as they are merely acting in accordance with the ToS.  Why are we asked to officially close the case?  I remember the Rogers dead air time shenanigan.  I took them to the CCTS once over that.  Rogers called me and gave me a refund as a solution for case closure.  Anyway, accept closure if you think the case should be closed.  If you think there are loose ends still, voice the concerns. 

[computergeek541]

When CCTS asks you for permission to close a case, I read into that as pretty much them saying that they won't find in your favor if you don't agree to it. 

Back in the the day before the Wireless Code existed, it was common place for carrier not to refund prorated unused portions of a month after porting out.  However, if you complained directly to the carrier, I believe that they usually just gave you a refund anyway. In the case of Fido, they just flat-out refused to do to this for me, and I filed a CCTS complaint on the premise that they shouldn't legally be allowed to charge for service that isn't going to be provided.

CCTS phoned me and told me that they would go by whatever it said it the terms of service and they would not question the legality of charging for service that the carrier doesn't provide.  They then asked for my permission to close to the case.  I knew full well, that they were really likely saying that they were going to find in favor of the carrier.

[will13am]

---

@ScrapIronwrote:

They actually called me too but I was busy at the moment so they left a voicemail and an email asking about closing the case. 

I also said it's okay to close the case but I also outlined the fact that they only decided to change it because everyone was so vocal about it. Not meeting commitments and continiously bombarding us with moving to Koodo messages over the month shows a clear picture where they want Public Mobile to go. This final message really kind of sealed the deal though, lots of bad publicity. I'm probably not the only one who thinks this, but I can't recommend PM to anyone anymore. 

How could have PM avoided all of this? If you're wanting people to move, you don't offer a worse deal disguised as the "same" deal. If you don't keep commitments then don't make them. It's such a shame that it came down to this. For me, I wouldn't have minded moving to Koodo but just the way they approached it and the principle of it kind of ticked me off.

---

Those who have been on this board for while know that I unwaveringly preach to everyone to be loyal to you own wallet first and foremost and let everything else fall into place from there.  Depending on how you do the math, there are only 2 or 3 carriers in this country.  Don't cut short an already short list on the basis of anger.  If you are still angry, no problem, hide everything sharp, cool off and make a decision when you are good and ready to.  We have until March 15 to decide on staying, leaving to Koodo, or leaving to something totally different.  Weigh each option objectively and you will minimize regret in the long run.

[Korth]

I don't think it was ever a big deal to Telus.  Minimal (if any) impact on price of Telus shares, not even a slap on the wrist from CCTS (yet), some bad press online (of the type which is basically only visible to phone-interested people who are already looking for it), some lost customers who (from Telus's viewpoint) are not preferred high-ARPU brand-buying sorts of subscribers anyhow.

It is a big deal to Public Mobile.  Still doing damage control, probably going to reel from this scandal for a little while.  Bad rep on the street is murderous for a company which survives by word of mouth, the ghosts of evil promos past will scare away some potential customers for as long as google keeps churning up dirt from old graves.

I think it's "caveat vendor" ... mistakes were made and lessons were learned.

[ShawnC13]

Great to hear that they are looking into all of the complaints.  Be interesting to see if the case was kept open and Telus had to deal with them.  I think by closing them Telus won't even need to respond and it will become no big deal to them 

[Udonitron]

Me too...great to see them following up and taking this seriously. 

[slavitch]

Called me too. I closed the case but told them I would reopen if they tried this again.

[fsm7268]

---

@Gimliwrote:

they referenced the text from Public Mobile and asked if it would be okay to close the case given that Public Mobile has decided not to move forward...

I said sure, but to expect another if they tried to pull this BS again.

They fully expect to if they do again.

get ready - I think that they are going to call everyone.

---

Thanks for your update. Please keep each other updated! thanks.

[fsm7268]

Thanks for your update. Please keep each other updated! thanks.

[Anonymous]

This is truely excellent news. Great for us as consumers.  Hopefully PM will think twice before embarking on a similar path in the future.

[spaceman]

Hey guys,

Wondering if anyone else recieved a cold call from Koodo and wanting to have you come to their store to port your number out to them?

I got one today with the offer of transferring out to them and going over the plan that is being offered.

[ScrapIron]

They actually called me too but I was busy at the moment so they left a voicemail and an email asking about closing the case. 

I also said it's okay to close the case but I also outlined the fact that they only decided to change it because everyone was so vocal about it. Not meeting commitments and continiously bombarding us with moving to Koodo messages over the month shows a clear picture where they want Public Mobile to go. This final message really kind of sealed the deal though, lots of bad publicity. I'm probably not the only one who thinks this, but I can't recommend PM to anyone anymore. 

How could have PM avoided all of this? If you're wanting people to move, you don't offer a worse deal disguised as the "same" deal. If you don't keep commitments then don't make them. It's such a shame that it came down to this. For me, I wouldn't have minded moving to Koodo but just the way they approached it and the principle of it kind of ticked me off.

[spaceman]

thank you for keeping us in the loop. Its great to keep all parties honest

[Mana]

@Gimli thanks for sharing. 

Its good to know that they were listening and monitoring the situation. 

[MoraMan]

It's good that they are watching this and following up. Didn't fall on deaf ears.

[will13am]

Thanks for the heads up.  Nice to see that they are following due process and taking no short cuts.