Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Re: Service Term #5

"You will not use the service for: multi-media streaming..."

"Streaming" in this context is clearly a verb in the sense of a Telus customer setting up a multi-media streaming [verb] system. A reasonable example of such an application would be 24/7 webcam that is streaming [verb] a video feed out to the world. Applying this term to normal day-to-day, run-of-the-mill Internet surfing (which inevitably involves some reception [verb] of multi-media streams [noun] from websites such as and is a stretch. This sort of noun/verb confusion is very common. And even if you interpret it their way, then the enforcement is selective and based on other factors (bandwidth, as admitted). And thus this service term would very likely be found to be unenforceable.

"Excessive": what is excessive when the limit is "unlimited".

Telus is taking a big Verizon-size risk with their approach. If they were smart, they'd offer compensation and get agreements. If they don't, then someone somewhere will be taking them to court (after a token mediation attempt). Then the lawyers get involved, and years later Telus is making out a cheque for huge sums. And all staff involved are no longer working at Telus.

If you didn't mean "unlimited", then you should not have called it "Connect 75 Unlimited".

All You Can Eat Buffet [one plate limit, no seconds]


rak said...

Telus is jerking you around, and you're understandably mad about it, so rather than flame I'll just say this: Don't let them get your goat so bad that you're arguing from wishful thinking. That way lies madness.

Telus is in big trouble said...

I expect that they're going to get body-slammed by the regulators.

Sometimes these wireless carriers start to act as if they're above the law. A huge fine might help to remind them that they must abide by the rules.

My only goal now is to work towards getting them that huge fine. I'm in contact with the Competition Bureau.

It all hinges on them using the word "Unlimited" and then canceling service of those that are using the service above some undefined amount. This is not fair to the clients nor to the other players in the same service industry.

And the swirl of lies that followed isn't going to look good in front of the regulators.

It's difficult to believe that they could be so stoopid. For example, Mr. "Media Relations" didn't get them memo (circa 2005) about bloggers being a critical part of the new media.