Basic Contract law

 
I have a civil engineering degree, Concordia University , Montreal 1968, and I had worked as a Remax Realtor in Calgary too but in my decades of real life experiences in Canada the existing laws, regulating societies, governments clearly did not stop many Realtors,  lawyers or even now Bell Sympatico from telling lies to the customers, others.  http://anyonecare.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/misapplications-of-the-laws-in-canada/
 
Imagine that Bell has been in Business for years and is still guilty now clearly of fraudulent and unacceptable business practices, not living up to their contractual obligations, as I now have witnessed and undeniably detailed to even Bell and many others many times too now . Next here is basic legal, valid  understanding, terms of a valid contract, contract  law for all of the Bell employees too. Not just for any customers. Bell has definitely detailed, advertised it’s Internet services to all with their  terms, limitations and any customers who enters into mutually agreed upon terms, agreement with their services now forms the  essential mutually legally binding contract..
    
1: A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between competent two parties, persons of legal age too, that the governmental court, the law of the state or province , or country next will enforce. Contract law is based on the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (pacts must be kept).  Anyone can enter into a contract, except minors, certain felons and people of unsound mind.  It’s important to know that not all contracts details even  have to be in writing., for instance, certain agreements can also be made and accepted orallly and still be legally enforceable. While the contract agreement doesn’t always have to be in writing, all the other elements of a valid contract still have to be met, included, , fulfilled by law. The bottom line is that  the parties generally come to transactions in good faith, mutually trust and understanding, and not a one way approach, one way demands, one way relationship.All valid  courts, will not enforce, accept as valid  any contract to perform an accepted illegal act. A contract to kill some is invalid clearly too.  A person who pays for bad drugs that aren’t delivered can’t next seek the help of a court or the police in getting the money back. Unbelievable some people still do try to do this too. A valid contract also always requires the mutual parties’ consent, which must be freely made, not forced consent,  and clearly communicated to each other. Consent is not free when obtained through duress, menace, fraud,  lies, undue influence or mistakes, serious errors were presented.  Consent isn’t mutual unless the parties agree on the same thing in the same sense, a clear “meeting of the minds. One party now  presenting only their own  their terms, conditions, without the other parties approval, consent, free will   clearly is still not a valid contract.  In order for an acceptance of an offer to be effective, it must be made while the  sales, specific, fixed service offer is still open. Any  person can changes the conditions of an initial offer in responding to the offer, the old offer is clearly now rejected and the changed conditions constitute a counteroffer and that now becomes part of of any subsequent agreed upon contract. I did that with Bell now too. Once there is next a final, written contract between the parties, the parol evidence rule forbids the introduction in a court proceeding of any previous agreements between the parties on the subject matter of the contract.Only certain contracts aren’t valid unless in writing. Generally, they do deal with real property, certain specific loans, debts, money exceeding a certain amount, or contracts concerning the sale of goods worth more than $500 or one that   include  objects that won’t be performed within one year or within the promisor’s lifetime. Bell now being unable to supply me a promised high speed internet but only a low speed one is still a good example of an invalid contract even if was a written one originally from Bell.
  
2: The Specific parties. The contract must always include,  identify who the agreed upon specific parties are; usually names are sufficient, but sometimes addresses or titles may be used.   Bell and the specific customer. Me in this case.
  
3: The agreed upon object.  The Offer,  the thing, the value, the  services being agreed to is also known as the object or subject  and it itself not only  must be lawful, possible but it must be a definite, fixed, measurable amount specially now even by the laws of Quebec too. For instance Bell promising to deliver a customer a 6 meg download high speed   internet service, where they know they only have a 3 meg line capacity is not legal or legally binding contract. Bell  promising to supply their” best services “or “up to 6 megs services” is not legal as well for it is  is not really an agreed upon  fixed  object, rather the object is not definite and most customers have take that to mean 6 megs anyway. . The object of the contract does have to be very specific and measurable. It is Bell obligations now to to clerk up any ambiguity on the contract as agree upon by the comer now too. So if Bell promising a 6 megs internet services, and Bell by law  next has to deliver 16 megs to meet their promise that is also now part of the contract too. A specified length of time, such as one year does not mean the contract is still valid if Bell has not lived up to the agreed upon previously contract terms.
 
4: The outcome, or the considerations. All contracts require consideration, meaning each party must gain something fixed, tangible. It may also be something that is or isn’t done or given.   When a party agrees to do something (such as I will paint your house) or to not do something (I will not  sell my  house to anyone else for 30 days) they next also must gain something in return toy make this a valid contract, they must receive  agreed upon   fixed payment, a fixed reward. Generally, if I say I’ll paint your house, and you haven’t promised me anything in return, you can’t sue me next for not showing up because I will not receive  any consideration firstly”. Once a contract has been created, it can be determined if there are any issues that call into question of  its validity too.
   
5: Termination of contracts.  Breach of contract.  Breach of contract is recognised by the law with applicable penalties now too.  Contracts generally can only be terminated if mutually agree now by both parties as to what the terminations terms included. Parties to a contract may mutually agree to rescind the contract. In that case, the parties may agree on the duties and responsibilities of each party after the rescission. Bell still expecting  me to pay for their internet when they do not keep their promises is a breach of the contract, an invalid demand of me.   Now is the contract  price set, are promised quantities specially  determined, and is the time for performance clearly  stated? There should be enough information contained in the contract  always  that, if needed, the courts likely next  would be able to enforce the contract or determine the appropriate damages. Unless it is mutually agreed upon before any subsequent court demanded decision action,  is taken.  Fraud is the intentional misrepresentation of an important issue of the contract. The presence of fraud in a contractual proceeding makes the contract voidable by the party upon whom the fraud was perpetrated. The contract always still now binds both parties, and not just the customer to the terms, conditions of the contract agreed upon now as well.  Once it is determined that there is a contract, it it  still can, must be determined whether there are any defenses that call into question the validity of the contract.Bell Changing horses, making changes, additions to the contract in midstream is invalid, a breach, still not allowed, especially without the subsequent, and pre consent, approval of both parties now still too and is a breach of contract rather. That includes Bell capping of my bit torrent downloads too on my unlimited download accountYes a Bell  contract also may end because of a breach by Bell.  A breach occurs when a person, or a firm  does not fulfill his or her, their  responsibilities as promised in the contract. A breach may be minor or major. A  major breach is one that does affect the subject matter of the contract and does  affect the outcome of the contract.  Bell not having sufficient equipment, capacity in place to meet my high speed internet, is a breach of contract. This is also known as a breach of a material issue. When there has been a breach in a contract, the question of damages is raised. The damages due to a party when there is a contract breach depend on many factors, including: which party breaches, and what damages were incurred. In most cases when an injury results from a contract breach, the injured party receives money damages. Such as I have in Dec  2007 from Bell.  Bell itself has unacceptably cause now in the last 2 years many unacceptable breaches in our contract that I have clearly even in writing not accepted and have objected too and demand restitution of as well rightfully.Go back to a good school firstly Bell if you cannot understand and keep all of this now too. “Despite precedents that show that contracts substantially favoring the party with the greater power often are deemed unconscionable (so unfair as to not be enforceable), lawyers stiff draft them and companies still like them.   Lesson learned: Make deals that are balanced; contracts that distribute risks and responsibilities fairly. Such deals will be honored by courts and your businesses wealth and reputation will benefit over the long term. “ http://troutmanhays.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/one-sided-contracts-are-a-bad-deal-for-all-parties-or-getting-greedy-will-get-ya/        

 

When attempting to enforce a contract, an individual or business should always consider the effect any dispute will have on any long-term business relationship between all of the parties involved.     

PS: “In Real Estate specifically , there it is a requirement at Law that contracts be written down in usually lengthy legal forms to avoid uncertainty, ambiguity and to be binding “.   
I was surprised this week when a Bell employee from Bell’s accounting department told me on the phone that I should obey, do everything that the Bell president, and  his employee Sasha Rollins tells me to do. Dream on.  Bluntly I replied to the same employee “who the hell does he Sasha Rollins  now think his e really is that I should obey anything, or everything  he says, he firstly is not my master, I do not work for Bell, I am not his employee”.. Bell is getting carried away with their much too many, unenforceable,  exotic, extreme, man made rules now, but they breached my contract still much to often and that itself is really inacceptable still too.  Clearly Bell and their  executive power has falsely now gone to their heads when they even do think they can abuse any others, an ordinary citizen now too. I as a Sympatico customer that does have a contract with Bell, a mutual contract they Bell now also have to respect and that contract now does not make me their slave, subordinate, and them my master, but they are still my legal equals in the matters. They have to respect my contract side now too. Do remind them all of that too at Bell.
 
I KNOW FROM DECADES OF FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCES IN MY ENCOUNTERS WITH COPS, LAWYERS, PASTORS, SO CALLED PROFESSIONALS,  OTHERS TOO, that most often now in reality the very same people who do tend to preach to others that we all must not steal, tell lies, drive drunk, that we must respect other person’s rights, all the laws…  those very  same persons who so readily  tend to preach the rules to others, those very same persons  who  expect all of the others to falsely obey  the rules even now  all the while they most often tend to be the firstly the  very same persons to break most of  the rules themselves, they themselves they do not keep them, and they still also  falsely believe they personally are exempt from living the rules cause  they do preach them  to others.
 
What you had never encountered crooked cops, crooked pastors, crooked lawyers, crooked managers, bad executives, lying no good politicians too?  These same persons  who too  readily judge others, and who demand, want to enforce the rules upon the others, they  cannot see the truth as to who they are firstly, they themselves are now the lying hypocrites.
 
When most a person tries to enforce any rule upon me I immediate rightfully do next often do ask them who they think they are that they think I now have to respect the  man made rules firstly? What makes them think I have to be now their false slave too? And why do they think that they are any kind of boss over me in these matters?
 
For  just cause  someone, a lawyer now too even,  some one made up some set of rules it still does  not mean they are all valid, or legitimately  enforceable now too!  I still have even my right of free speech and I still can say what I want, write what I want too.. even about them now too. Not all man made rules, regulations even in writing are rightfully valid still in reality, and just ask any decent judge on the court of the Queen’s judge and he or she can tell you the same thing too.
 
CALGARY – An employee with the Calgary Police Service has been arrested in a drug trafficking operation and Calgary Policeman was arrested for drunk driving that caused an accident..
 

Courts Turn Against Abusive Contracts
 
“In the past month, however, two new US court rulings suggest that judges are developing a more sophisticated sense of how corporations conduct online and technology transactions with their customers that Bell Sympatico especially now needs to note.
 
“The EULAs or terms-of-service agreements are long and legalistic, the deals are offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and the terms are often oppressive and one-sided. As a result, the legal hegemony of the EULA is cracking. This is a good development for consumers, who would otherwise be saddled by oppressive terms they have neither the legal sophistication to understand nor the bargaining power to avoid, and for the public interest, which suffers when customers are forced to waive rights that capitalist democracies rely on for innovation and accountability.In Gatton v. T-Mobile (.pdf), the California Court of Appeal struck down a provision in the mobile phone company’s EULA requiring consumers to go through arbitration to challenge termination fees or the practice of selling locked handsets that can’t switch carriers with the customer. The court held that both the way customers entered into the EULA contract, and the arbitration terms of that contract, were unconscionable, and therefore the provision would not be enforced.The reasons the court gave for holding the EULA procedurally unconscionable apply to most EULAs. Even though the arbitration term was fully disclosed to consumers, the contract was one of “adhesion”: an agreement imposed and drafted by the party with superior bargaining strength, which gave the consumer only the opportunity to accept or reject the contract, not to freely negotiate it. As a result, the customer’s unequal bargaining power results in an absence of meaningful choice. The fact that the customers could choose a different carrier may mitigate, but not cure, the procedural unconscionability.Gatton is an important case because it recognizes that every clickwrap, shrink-wrap, browsewrap and box-wrap contract has an element of procedural unconscionability that requires the court to consider whether the challenged term of the contract is overly harsh or one-sided. This opens up the content of contracts to legal supervision, which is great in a situation where the customer hasn’t really been able to bargain, negotiate or otherwise exercise market power.The federal courts seem to be following suit. In Douglas v. U.S. District Court (Talk America) (.pdf), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that a service provider may not change contract terms by posting those changes on its website without notification to the customer. In this case, the plaintiff sought to invalidate an arbitration provision like the one in Gatton and a provision stating that New York law would apply to the agreement, because the terms were added to the service agreement after the customer had signed up. The court held that the customer could not be bound to new terms, even by continuing to use the service, if he is not given notification that the terms have changed.Modern customers are at a real disadvantage against the bargaining power of technology corporations, some of which have shown no restraint at trying to limit consumer remedies, or even product testing and review.  Douglas show courts are moving away from applying a simplistic theory of contract formation toward developing legal rules that are more attuned with the modern marketplace and balance of power. This is a welcome development, and one which could protect consumer interests and the public interest by developing rules and limitations on the otherwise extremely useful practice of mass-market contracting.”Jennifer Granick is executive director of the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society, and teaches the Cyberlaw Clinic. http://www.wired.com/politics/law/commentary/circuitcourt/2007/08/circuitcourt_0801         

“David Lazarus of the The Los Angeles Times blasts Verizon today for withholding contract terms from customers until AFTER they have signed up for service – and some of the contract terms are ones that I sure wouldn’t agree to: they have signed up for service – and some of the contract terms are ones that I sure wouldn’t agree to:

Verizon not upfront on contract terms – Los Angeles Times

Excerpt:

For years, credit card issuers have gotten away with withholding contracts from customers until they actually have the plastic in their hands — a practice that denies many people a fair chance to look under the hood for onerous terms and conditions.Now it looks like Verizon has adopted the same technique.

What really struck [Torrance, California resident Sandy Lough] was the discovery that to receive the promised discount for her bundled plan, she’d have to go online and agree to a 2,000-word “bundle service agreement” and a 7,000-word terms of service for Internet access.

This was the first time she was being presented with the full contract for her new FiOS setup, and the service had already been installed and activated.

The LA Times article goes on to mention some of the more notable terms of the contract.  The interesting thing is that it would appear that this is not simply an oversight – that perhaps Verizon deliberately withholds contract terms from customers until they’ve already committed to the service:

As for why the full contract is withheld until after FiOS has been installed in a person’s home, [Verizon spokesman Cliff Lee] said only that “this is the way we’ve found that works.”

What has happened to make large corporations think they can simply change the deal at their whim, after a customer has already signed on the dotted line, without giving the customer the same right?  “

No large corporation, with almost infinite legal resources and billions of dollars behind them, should be able to use their wealth to put real people at a disadvantage, because it would be presumed that only the corporations   had any legal rights.   Bell included now.

What started as a simple phone call by me in January 2007 to Bell tech help line to determine why my internet services were so slow and sluggish next had  become a major farce, cover-up on the part of Bell Sympatico. I was next lied to for months as to the real reasons Bell they rather had offered me their poor internet services to me and  to many others in my city for years now too.. and then Bell had even  lied to me some more, had also breached their contractual obligations to me many times too, had allowed me even to be slandered, abused on the Bell customer forums now too.. and why? so  that clearly greedy Bell can continue stay in business to make more money..
 
and so who really cares now about the customer’s good welfare in reality? now? What not Bell itself, not the CRTC, not the federal government, not our Prime Minister Stephen Harper, not  the the federal Minister of Consumer Affairs, Jim Prentice..  not  any provincial consumer affairs Minister, but only the citizens, the news media, and the NDP party care about the citizens  good welfare really it seems. Not acceptable for sure too!
  
Bell itself found a an excuse for not performing a specific job assigned to them under the  contract agreement but fooled few ipeople n the process now too. One side breaching a contract is a common, often fact of life, very common, and it happens often in in the Computer business, with Internet Service Providers, in  Real estate and even with new home contractors now as well sadly,  and I  have often witnessed it myself.. and pretentious self regulating boards, governments  are mostly useless too, and it is basically too costly to get a lawyer, it only makes the lawyer’s richer, so now the best way to deal with any breach of contract  is to  expose the bad guys to all, to the news media  and thus really put them out of business.. and I have done that even with major corporations successfully now too.. 
   “
Top 10 Reasons to Avoid Breaching a Contract
10. YOUR BUSINESS REPUTATION. You could damage your reputation in the business community.
9. YOUR BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS. You could sever your business relationship with the other party.
8. LAWSUITS. You could be sued.
7. TIME AWAY FROM YOUR BUSINESS. If sued, you could be forced to spend valuable time away from your business in order to respond to discovery requests, attend depositions, and litigate the matter in court.
6. LEGAL FEES. You could incur significant legal fees.
5. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. Depending on the nature of the contract, you could be ordered by the court to perform your obligations under the contract.
4. CONTEMPT. If you don’t obey the court’s order, you could be held in contempt, fined, and/or imprisoned.
3. COMPENSATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. You could be forced to pay money damages to the nonbreaching party, in an amount that puts that party in as good a position as it would have been in were it not for the breach.
2. PUNITIVE DAMAGES. You could be ordered to pay punitive damages, which are not limited by the amount of the other party’s losses and can be very significant.
1. YOU LOSE ALL THE WAY AROUND. You could end up spending much more time, money, and mental and physical energy resolving the breach than you would have spent performing your obligations under the contract.”
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-forms-contracts/business-forms-contracts-overview/business-forms-contracts-overview-avoid-breaching.html  ”  
 

“The ISP suppliers, Canadian corporations  now even such as Acanac Inc. http://www.acanac.ca 1-866-281-3538  still are big unacceptable Liars who undeniably too are  clearly  guilty also of misleading, false advertising too now..
 
Accanac had mentioned on their internet  site that they do not cap their downloads.. but they conveniently had forgot to also say to all of the potential customers on their site that they lease their services from Bell   that Bell itself  still regularly between 4 pm to 2 am caps their downloads.. when confronted with this they  Acanac Inc do reply  that  they do not cap their downloads but Bell does.. what an absurd misleading play on words.
 
Mind you Acanac headquartered in Toronto did also claim  that  they do provide a solution to this Capping software by means of a Putty software but unfortunately this  Acanac Inc approach is unreliable, requires continual monitoring, and is presently is more problems then what it is worth.
 
and Acanac’s support services are also non basically existent in fact, or very very inadequate, slow…
 

So why does our pretentious , inadequate Minister of industry, JimPrentice MP and his   useless consumer affairs department fail over and over again to look after the good interest of the consumers, but looks mainly after Big business good welfare? and his friends ” And not the rest of us?

 

Advertisements

And

Why does Bell lie about what it does, wants to do still?  
 
 Me I have the decency to first complain to BellSympatico , to tell them honestly, openly what I am going to post on my site next about them too, at least they were pre-warned by me.
  
Firstly I merely have substantiated here how many others now do also like me feel about Sympatico Bell’s secrecy, under handiness, definite internet contract violations, lies… I support in detail  my side of the truth, story too.  I am not alone who complains to Bell often and loudly  and still what surprises me is that Bell wrongfully thought it could get away with al of their bad acts to me and others in the first place..Do notice that no one from Bell has send me a copy of my last six months billing or proof I had requested any contract changes, new equipment as well, and no one had phoned me back this week from Bell again now too.. now why was that? They had lied and had promised they would.  So it is no wonder so many people today are really rightfully upset at Bell, not just me.Bell getting me more upset is the wrong thing for Bell to try to do, I just get louder, do write thousands more letters to news editors, electric officials still too..  They Bell should by now know I too can escalate the matters and not back down.. Bell still does needs to adequately deal wiht me, reply to me before it gets worse for them and they lose thousands more customers..

I paid Bell for unlisted, unlimited download and they did not supply it to me, Bell did not even have the honestly to originally tell the truth to all and to beforehand say that they were capping it now as well.. Bell they done it first in secret, and were thus wrongfully violating my personal privacy in the process too.   Talking about Bell’s balance reply Bell they have only one reply basically and It is take it or leave it.. I have another.. I rightfully object!   but me I also do fight back in writing and let the whole world know how the snakes in the dark operate in the darkness, and the darkness hates the light to be revealed upon it still too. Bell loses many many customers now too as a result of these exposures of how Bell operates.

 

 

Even my neighbors when they read the newspaper can see the positive influence that I have had on the elected officials, news media in regard to Bell’s undeniable bad services, bad acts and my neighbours they all agree with me on this too… I am doing a good thing exposing Bell.  Bell should not fight with someone retired like me, for I have plenty of free time , and a desire to pursue it with everyone even more next too, and it will be costly for Bell too.  I told them beforehand in writing the war with Bell will escalate NEXT TOO and it did, it has, they have a lot more to lose than I have in all of this too…  I do really look like a good guy in many people’s eyes standing up against the Bell bullies and liars.

Beyond the shadow of the doubt the articles posted here next by me showed that Bell ‘s Internet  capping reasons were false, unsubstantiated, and so I still rightfully object to Bell capping my net to all too.

 Why does Bell lie about what it does, wants to do still?   

  2 days respond time from Bell? is a joke.. I have waited weeks just to try to get an official copy of my Bell Sympatico billings this year..

Ironically the real basic Hog is greedy Bell firstly too who is trying to make loads more money from it’s internet services by playing dirty and changing the contract rules without my approval

Bell has mislead us all as to why Bell has been Throttling the internet.
” 20% of traffic comes from P2P applications
During peak-load times, 70% of subscribers use http.
Only 20% are using P2P
Http still makes up most of the total traffic, of which 45% is traditional web content including text and images.
Streaming video and audio content from services such as YouTube account for nearly 50% of the http traffic.
AStreaming content such as TV shows and YouTube is on the rise.
This clearly shows the “bandwidth hogs” are, in fact, ordinary, average http users during peak time, and NOT Bell’s fictitious 5% of “heavy” P2P users” who suck up around 50% of the total available bandwidth.
Bell also tries to say only 5% of surfers use P2P or even know what P2P is.
These data do not support the claims made by Bell, which admits its data were collected in April over a year ago —- and in another country.
So in effect, what Bell has done is to pick a protocol and application they decided were expendable, with no supporting current evidence or data on their network, also unilaterally deciding for their wholesale customers (who are also their competition) what applications they’ll block.
This should be a warning for everyone to wake up to the fact Bell is throttling anything and everything it pleases, and since streaming video (YouTube and TV shows) is high on the list, this will surely be next on their list of items to be throttled.
Since it’s now obvious that, contrary to Bell’s claims, P2P isn’t the real target (since its not really that heavy on the network during peak time), what’s the real reason for the company to install and apply technology able to open and inspect packets? (And, by the way, it can also retain logs.)
Is it to delay upgrades?
Is it to peak into people’s private packets?
Is it to gather data on users and the users of the competition?
Is it because P2P is now mainstream (20% of the users, not 5% as proclaimed by Bell) and growing by 100% yearly?
Is it a way for Bell to lower their peak-time bandwidth costs and at the same time prevent its own users from jumping ship to the competition?
But hey! Don’t take my word for it; take Arbor Networks, the maker of the throttling machines Bell could be using!
Meanwhile, check out CAIP’s second submission to the CRTC.

References:
http://gigaom.com/2008/04/22/shocking-new-facts-about-p2p-and-broadband-usage/
http://communities.canada.com/montrealgazette/blogs/tech/archive/2008/04/23/vide”
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/15738#comment-433287 
 
In secret, and unofficially “Bell commenced the throttling of competitor traffic at precisely the same time that it decided to eliminate the last vestiges of its retail unlimited Internet usage plans. And that was obvious to me and I had told everyone that too.. that Bell has not been open and transparent in how they have abused their customers. Unacceptable

“Bell’s own customers, Canadian Net users and smaller ISPs have become allies in a bid to force telco giant Bell Canada to stop using P2P file sharers as an excuse to shackle bandwidth. Called traffic shaping or throttling, the corporate ‘management’ action not only severely restricts services users have paid for, it also impacts net neutrality and prevents online freedom of speech, say critics. Leading the attack against the practice has been CAIP (Canadian Association of Internet Providers) representing more than 50 independent internet service providers who, not at all incidentally, are also Bell clients. One of them, TekSavvy, based in Ontario, has organised a rally on Parliament Hill in Ottawa to force politicians to pay attention to customer needs. The date set for the rally is May 15 “This will be for net neutrality, which will bring the Bell topic in, but will have a much larger goal,” company CEO Rocky Gaudrault “Net neutrality hits a public nerve. But it’s not really a stand-alone. There are many overlapping issues here. I’ve mentioned privacy, choice and ISP transparency, but there are many other aspects.” In the view of CAIP, Bell has failed to establish a rational connection between its throttling practices to any legitimate or pressing objective of any kind and the corresponding effect of these practices on competitors and their end-user customers has been at once targeted and overly broad. By Bell’s own admission: Bell is deliberately reducing the speed and throughput of a local access service (i.e., GAS) that is used by interconnected competitors to provide a wide variety of retail telecommunications services to their end-user customers, including remote LAN access services, voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) services, virtual private network (“VPN”) services, streaming audio and video services, data exchange services, and high speed Internet access services. Bell has engaged in these throttling practices without providing a shred of evidence that its network is congested or that its GAS customers are the specific cause of any alleged network congestion. Bell commenced these throttling practices without providing competitors with any notice of its intention to throttle or “shape” their traffic and without providing competitors with any opportunity to test the impact of Bell’s traffic shaping technology on the services that competitors deliver to their end-user customers.

Bell’s campaign of throttling competitors traffic was initiated at precisely the same time that it decided to stop offering an unlimited usage plan to its retail Internet customers – a decision, which Bell knew might cause its retail customers to migrate to the unlimited usage plans of competitors.

There is also uncontradicted evidence, as particularized at paragraph 56 herein, that strongly suggests that the reasons behind Bell’s decision to throttle its competitors’ GAS traffic have little to do with Bell’s unsubstantiated claims of “network congestion” and more to do with a desire to lessen competition in retail telecommunications markets. There are far too many “coincidences” between the timing of the initiation of Bell’s throttling practices and the timing of a number of other events in order to conclude otherwise.”

“Failure to Provide Notice of Network Changes CAIP notes that Bell has chosen not to directly address in its Answer its failure to “notify” its competitors of its intention to implement network modifications that could affect the operation of other carriers’ networks. Bell. It has made changes to its network without notification. No information was provided to its wholesale customers as to exactly what changes Bell has made. CAIP’s members have been subjected to unexpected network disruptions, their network users were affected without notice, and Bell failed to provide them with the opportunity to examine the proposed change, conduct joint testing and take action as required before the change came into effect.16
In addition, the reality of Bell’s “willingness to work” is far less encouraging. Since March 14, 2008, the only notice that Bell appears to have issued to its wholesale customers in relation to its throttling measures is a two-page document entitled “DSL Traffic Management – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)”. By way of response, CAIP can advise that this “FAQ” document was not received by all of its members who subscribe to Bell’s GAS. Moreover, the document was sent out more than one month after Bell commenced the throttling of its competitors’ traffic which is hardly responsive given Bell’s duties to provide advance notice of network changes to its competitors. Perhaps more troubling, however, is the fact that Bell’s FAQ document is almost entirely bereft of any technical details regarding its traffic shaping equipment and network protocols. Moreover, when asked to provide this type of information, Bell has been extremely evasive and short on technical details. This is not acceptable state of affairs.

Bell’s Actions Constitute an Undue and Unreasonable Preference Granted to Itself and a Disadvantage Applied to Competitors In addition, Bell suggests that the following alleged facts somehow minimise the illegality or deleterious effect of its traffic-shaping measures: throttling is “applied only during peak usage periods” and “only applied to P2P file sharing applications”;

“it has not been presented with any evidence that its Internet traffic management solution is having any impact on VPN or VoIP traffic.22

New media content available on the Internet is often delivered using P2P protocol. So regardless of whether it is streaming content or not, it is clear that new media undertakings are seriously affected by Bell’s decision to target all content delivered using P2P protocols.

Bell commenced the throttling of competitor traffic at precisely the same time that it decided to eliminate the last vestiges of its retail unlimited Internet usage plans. 30 Bell’s 2007 Annual Report indicates that it knew that the discontinuance of such plans might cause its retail customers to migrate to the unlimited usage plans of its competitors.31

Bell commenced the throttling of competitor traffic at the very same time that it launched a massive mailing campaign to its home phone customers that is intended to promote its retail Internet access service, a service that is described by Bell’s billing insert as offering “super fast access speeds” of up to 16 Mbps. This mailing campaign also states that Bell’s Internet services provide a “Direct, uncongested gateway to the Internet” over a “brand new, next-generation fibre optic network”.32 Bell does not offer a 16 Mbps speed to competitors under either its GAS or HSA tariffs. The fastest speed available to competitors under these tariffs is 6 Mbps.33 .

This aspect of Bell’s wholesale throttling activities gives rise a serious issue that Bell’s actions violate the privacy of the communications of its wholesale customers as well as that of their end-user customers.

BELL’S TRAFFIC SHAPING MEASURES ARE CAUSING IRREPARABLE HARM

Bell does not deny that reduced data transfer speeds could harm its competitors.

The fact that there is no legitimate and pressing basis for Bell’s throttling actions and therefore, no overriding interest, either private or public, that favours withholding the interim relief requested by CAIP;

Even if there was any evidence of a legitimate and pressing basis for Bell’s throttling actions, their effect is at once so overbroad, discriminatorily and it outweighs any inconvenience to Bell of returning to the status quo ex ante; and

To the contrary, an overriding public interest in:

(iii)The protection of privacy;

(iv)The inviolability and neutrality of telecommunications common carriage;

(v)Maintaining respect for the enactments of Parliament;

(vi)Enforcing the Commission’s tariffs and policies, such as the Commission’s Notification of Network Changes policies strongly tilts the balance of convenience in favour of granting the interim relief sought by CAIP.

As discussed above, there is no legitimate, competitively neutral basis for the measures undertaken by Bell. Rather, at this point, the evidence points to the conclusion that the most rational explanation for the reasons that Bell undertook the throttling measures are purely commercial and relate directly to a desire to decrease competition in the downstream retail market.

The Public Interest Would be Protected by a Return to the Status Quo Ex Ante

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/15735  

 

 

 

Canada’s Federal Government, Bell

 
From: Paul Kambulow
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 4:09 AM
To: pm@pm.gc.ca ; Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca ; Day.S@parl.gc.ca ; Dion.S@parl.gc.ca ; Abbott.J@parl.gc.ca ; allenm@parl.gc.ca ; Ambrose.R@parl.gc.ca ; Anders.R@parl.gc.ca ; Baird.J@parl.gc.ca ; Bell.D@parl.gc.ca ; Bernier.M@parl.gc.ca ; Blackburn.J@parl.gc.ca ; Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca ; casson@rickcasson.com ; Chong.M@parl.gc.ca ; Clement.T@parl.gc.ca ; davebatters@shaw.ca ; Davidp@parl.gc.ca ; delmad@parl.gc.ca ; DevolB@parl.gc.ca ; Emerson.D@parl.gc.ca ; Faille.M@parl.gc.ca ; Finley.D@parl.gc.ca ; Flaherty.J@parl.gc.ca ; Fletcher.S@parl.gc.ca ; Goodale.R@parl.gc.ca ; hawnL@parl.gc.ca ; Hearn.L@parl.gc.ca ; Holland.M@parl.gc.ca ; info@dickharrismp.ca ; jaffer@parl.gc.ca ; Keeper.T@parl.gc.ca ; Kenney.J@parl.gc.ca ; Layton.J@parl.gc.ca ; Lukiwski.T@parl.gc.ca ; Lunn.G@parl.gc.ca ; Mackay.P@parl.gc.ca ; MacKenzie.D@parl.gc.ca ; martin.paul@parl.gc.ca ; mathyi@parl.gc.ca ; Mayes.C@parl.gc.ca ; Moore.J@parl.gc.ca ; Obhrai.D@parl.gc.ca ; OConnor.G@parl.gc.ca ; Oda.B@parl.gc.ca ; ottawa@larrymiller.ca ; Pallister.B@parl.gc.ca ; pepinl@sen.parl.gc.ca ; Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca ; rajotte.j@parl.gc.ca ; sgroj@parl.gc.ca ; silva.m@parl.gc.ca ; simmssc@parl.gc.ca ; Skelton.C@parl.gc.ca ; Solberg.M@parl.gc.ca ; sorenson.k@parl.gc.ca ; Toews.V@parl.gc.ca ; Verner.J@parl.gc.ca ; volpej1@parl.gc.ca ; warkentin.c@parl.gc.ca ; Yelich.L@parl.gc.ca ; zedp@parl.gc.ca ; letters@cbc.ca ; news@ctv.ca ; newsroom@herald.ca ; newsdesk@lfpress.com ; submit@theherald.canwest.com ; letters@thegazette.canwest.com ; globalnational@canada.com ; localnews@tc.canwest.com ; sunnewstips@png.canwest.com ; city@thejournal.canwest.com ; globalnews.reg@globaltv.ca ; mmarshall@leaderpost.canwest.com ; oped@ott.sunpub.com ; editor@tor.sunpub.com ; tabtips@png.canwest.com ; sanderson@thecitizen.canwest.com ; newsroom@canadianchristianity.com ; ministre@finances.gouv.qc.ca ; ministre@justice.gouv.qc.ca
Subject: it is no secret why Stephen Harper and Stephen Dion are not more popular with the citizens
I also do agree it is no secret why Stephen Harper and Stephen Dion are not more popular with the citizens.. it seems both of them are really deaf too.
 
Majority of the voters are still just the ordinary basic citizens who really do care if the governments does look after the citizen’s own interests, and  not rather mainly after the selective few.
 
Yes most People still do watch even you as to how you. and I do treat others,  how the government threats others, for they know that is likely how they will be treated next too.
 
Now for 25 years I have rightfully complained that the government has not dealt with, addressed many of the  the basic citizens complaints such as –
1: The bad Canadian cops , bad RCMP who rarely are punished for abusing the citizen, their internal cover-up police reviews are an unacceptable farce.
2: Consumer affairs protection is another pretentious joke, and we have seen that illustrated too often how little is being done about false, misleading advertising, especially now in regards to the big Bully Bell.
3  But also now there are many other related past citizens complaints, the citizens had been led to hope, to believe they would be addressed by the new Conservative.. but were sadly disappointed..  such as those too often pretentious and inadequate still civil and public servants in Health Canada, Foreign Affairs and in Immigration Canada now too.. and even bad civil and public servants in other governmental departments..
 
The self serving leaders, rather still pretentious, bad managers,  and  bad governments, are too transparent to get the citizens full support still too and rightfully so too.
 

 
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 10:05 AM
Subject: The Bell Paul Kambulow Topic
  paul kambulow Re: The Paul Kambulow Topic
9:58 AM
 
To my Witness the following happened on my Bell unlimited, 6 meg high speed account, and I have been with Bell for many years for a start.. I want Bell to honour all of their past promises to me.
1 Firstly what is there here to understand now, it is all simple, Bell for months, years now lies to me even in their adds, on the phone, on the net, by chat.. I Phone them, write to them and I make posts here, and they next do say sorry but Bell they do not keep their promises, and/or deal with my complaints fully, adequately too. Facts posted in detail on about 12 internet sites for all to read. It is all undeniable too. http://thenoncomformer.spaces.live.com /2 They Bell, Executive Care Sasha Rollins still do send me 3 letters to my home in the last 9 months by mail, Bell had threatened in writing to cut of my phone, my internet account if I complain about Bell to any others. Next me, the news media, the Prime Minister too, strongly objected to this approach by Bell. I next often tell Bell to go to court, for I need the publicity, for that is the only way they are going to be paid for Bell’s false extra changes, contract violations too. If they cut of my internet or send me lying Bills, lying phone calls I will charge them with harassment next as well.So BELL in the last month mostly does not even reply to my emails except to phone me at home and say a person at the highest level has been appointed to deal with it, he had phoned me at home, and all of my complaints had be resolved, but this is a great lie, for when I ask all of them for the name of the person no one knows who it is, or what his name is. I ask for his phone number and they refuse to give it to me. I still have not got an official confirmation of any of this still too after many requests too. My past Contact officially with BELL SASHA ROLLINS HE EVEN DID NOT RETURN ONE PHONE CALL TO HIM THIS YEAR, NOR REPLY TO MANY MANY EMAILS, AND HE HAS NOT DEALT WITH ALL OF THESE DETAILED COMPLAINTS ABOUT MY BILLING ACCOUNT, LINE PROBLEMS, BELLS MANY LIES AS WELL.

3 The last many months too I specially as well have not been able to access my Bell on line Billing , to even see, get my monthly billing for months, so I phoned them about a month ago specially too and Bell still will not send me an official copy of them.. and does that fact alone not make you really su****ious of Bell? why are they doing that now? Waiting for a CRTC hearing presently ongoing to be able to screw me officially? or waiting for me to leave Bell on my own? OR WHAT? DO TELL ME.

4 I was on a high-speed unlimited contract and someone at Bell changed it to who knows what, for they never gave me confirmation of what I was even changed to yet now as well. and I have asked them many times too.. and why.. they lie.. and don’t tell me what you think happened here.. confirm it officially.

5 Because someone changed me to another plan, and I was given the name and number of the Bell employee by Bell accounting now too, next I also got a rather huge bill upwards of 250$ for bandwidth charges. Meanwhile SOME ONE AT BELL ACCOUNTING sends me unofficial, unsigned partial billing statements, supposed new contract, but it is so vague, useless.. all it says is I agree to a Bell internet service! no terms specified. Bell will not even confirm when my supposedly old contract had started and stopped as well.. why?

6 Plus someone at Bell lied and said I wanted this year an upgraded modem and charged me 55 dollars for it too.. and I never was even requested it or told about it..

7. My internet has been cutting off intermittently (a sign of Bell’s external wiring problem). continued

 

Reply   |  Forward   |  Print
paul kambulow Re: The Paul Kambulow Topic
9:59 AM
 
8 Plus 3/4 weeks my speeds fluctuated from 1 to 6 megs and they were not a steady 5- 6 megs9 Plus Bell capped my bit torrents without telling me too.10. My speeds have been fluctuating (a sign of a wiring problem and/or a sign of the profile being changed by Bell continually too.. I get different answers from Bell to what my speed profile was even under the old Unlimited contract.11. Although since January 2007 I have been complaining about my slow internet last July I found out Bell really had no high speed line at all in my area, we all here had been for years paying for high speed and next we got only al low speed line in fact

12 So Bell in August 2007 out me on a Fiber optical cable at 6 megs, and promised me 3 months free service too.. It last one month, and they they broke their promise and demanded an extra 74 dollars per month in September from me for the 6 meg unlimited..

13 So next In December Bell Sasha Rollins agrees to six months free internet at 6 megs and unlimited downloads in writing.. and this last only for 3 weeks.. the speed profiles next do change generally during the last week of January, February, March 2008 and 3 weeks of complaining they bring it back up.

14: I also have been having disconnect problems that the last 9 months too when it rains

15 I have been having new capping on my email send outs the last 9 months too

14 This problem Bell internet services has been going on for many many months and so in March I ask them to pay me the 6 months free internet as promised plus an extra 500 dollars too for someone else’s mistake.

And if they continue to hassle me about this I will rightfully demand one year free internet service, and 1000 extra.

15 In the last 9 months I had my modem replaced 7 times, I had 7 repairmen in my home, I talked to 7 Bell expediters at the executive care including Sasha Rollins, and still get screwed by Bell’s ongoing lies, Bell’s contract violations, failure to keep their promises too.

16 Instead of giving me 6 months of promised 6 megs unlimited free internet Bell next credits the account for 304 dollars, next cancels the credit, next reinstalls the credit, and meanwhile Bell even falsely tries to take more money from my pre authorized payment bank account even twice in one month causing an 75 dollars Bank over draft, when I was on the free 6 months plan, plus had a credit here for it too. Now they have to pay me back the 75 dollars too rightfully

17 I often get a phone calls at my home from supervisors in India, or Accounting too, or Bell executive carte who say they will resolve all my complaints and call me back the next day, even from a new person this week, but they do not call me back firstly, never mind deal with all of my complaints, demands too.

18. Yes I rightfully want the bandwidth charges removed for 2008 till we both agree upon a new contract, payments right now there is no official contract, and thus have no right to take any money from by pre authorized bank account for it too..

19. I want any costs incurred, due to me leaving Bell to go elsewhere to be paid by Bell as well for I had told bell in December I would rather go to their competitions at 19 dollars per moth, for one year, 5 megs speed, unlimited download and they asked me not to do so.. based on their false, dirtied promises.

continued

 

 

Reply   |  Forward   |  Print
paul kambulow Re: The Paul Kambulow Topic
9:59 AM
 
 
20. I am still on regular high-speed plan, unlimited for no one gave them person to change it FIRSTLY, NOR HAD BELL NOTIFIED ME OF ANY CHANGES TO IT OFFICIALLY TOO.21 . I still want copies of your bills for the past 6-months so you can scrutinize them to see if there is any other money you may have over-paid. and there wasHave I missed anything? yes many other rightful complaints about Bell too, manyFederal Consumer affairs Minister Jim Prentice last year had promised to prosecute Bell Sympatico for false misleading advertising to me, The Quebec Minister of Fiancé ME Forget promises to review the matter and get back to me as well.. and where are the results here too? etc..,,

 

 

 

http://www.supportcommunity.sympatico.ca/pe/action/forums/displaysinglethread?returnExpertiseCode=&rootPostID=10146282