The Shrine

So I'm pretty sure I mentioned to Zeus before (during the Bell thread) that I was getting a pretty wicked deal from Shaw, thanks to their predatory pricing tactics. I was, but it wasn't without it's hassles...every 3 months, when I'd go to pay my bill, Shaw would be overcharging me at regular rates -- I'd have to deal with CS to have them properly apply the proper internal promo codes to my account.

Anyway, that deal closed out August 22, but Shaw retained me as a customer by offering me their "Novus Package"; Cable, Digital Phone and Internet for $54.00 a month. I prepaid that for 3 months. I already had the DVR box and Internet, so all I had to do was schedule a phone jack appointment. Made it for Nov. 15, since they were fully booked weeks in advance and I was on the Islands for most of October.

Today, my services turned off. It really didn't surprise me, I'm used to it with Shaw. They probably fucked up my promo codes again. I call, deal with the service rep (after being on hold for an hour) and find out they have been charging me on their system $280.00 per month. I laugh and tell them "uhh, no". They say "uhh, yes". Their reasoning was as follows: Since the phone wasn't hooked up, they had no way of applying their promo codes internally, so they decided to charge me their "regular" pricing for the two services I had until the phone was activated. Prices I sure as hell never agreed to.

And it's not even a case of applying promo codes after the phone was in on Nov 15 to fix the previous pricing -- they expected me to pay the outstanding $600+ first. Thank god the previous year made it clear this was NOT a company to pre-auth for payment. Getting the money back then would have been a bigger hassle. As it is now, since the CSR manager offered me a piddly $200 reduction (I expect a zero balance and they are lucky I am not doing a charge back since services I paid for were cancelled prematurely), I will likely need to file a complaint through the CCTS. If that doesn't resolve it, I'll have to pay the balance under protest and file a small claims action (I don't care if it's a small amount, these dicks aren't owed a cent).

Bottomline, Shaw piece of shit company. If they suck you in with pricing, at least be smart...do NOT pre-auth them.

/rant off

PS - Oh, and I only have internet now (Novus is coming on Monday to activate) because their is always some sucker that leaves his wireless with the default password (or the same as the SSID) - heheh.

Yeah, i remember you mentioned Shaw. They don't sound any better than Rogers out here. These ex-monopolies really need their balls cut off....big time.

Check this out: I'm with Primus right now for phone and internet (I proudly don't pay a single penny to either Bell or Rogers). Primus' services is currently done two ways: 1) piggybacking off of Bell with the forced CRTC rates and 2) part of their own network that they are in the process of building. That starts generally in the centre of the city and moves outwards. The service is sold the same way so you're not really sure which one you're on until you check your speeds. Bell limits you to 5mbit and Primus to 7 or 8. Since I'm on the edge of my city, I'm piggybacking though Bell. Personally, I don't really care that much if I'm at "just" 5mbit, the steady connection with no download limit is of prime importance to me. And I'm not even really THAT heavy of a downloader anymore. Unless I find a big torrent or try to grab an older show or something, I probably don't even go above 60GB in a month.

But I noticed that I would often get limited to 25 k/sec download speeds starting in about September. I called Primus and asked what the hell was going on. Apparently, Bell paid off the CRTC enough to get a ruling where they can limit anyone on their network, even those who aren't their customers, during peak hours to "ease the congestion" on their networks. This from the same company where you can buy the new "Fibe" bullshit and get your 25mbit or whatever connection.....if you pony up the cash. So now, I'm suffering from Bell's over-selling of their inadequate network even though I'm not their customer. Couple that with the new ruling where Bell can now sell their rates to Primus (and others) on a per GB basis and I'm sure I'll soon be forced to operate under Bell's pricing structure soon now.

In essence, our regulatory agency is forcing me to follow Bell's rules and business model even when I'm not their customer. Way to go ensuring real competition, CRTC.

You would think communications companies would be looked at more closely. Its weird because every other day you read about the gov getting up in their ass, but then the rules and laws that pass are just ridiculously good for them. Pricing, even down here, i think is out of control for bpth cable and wireless carriers in addition to shit CS. DirecTV recently stopped carrying G4 for me due to a contract negotiation which really pissed me off. I know i get 100's of channels, but like most people i only flip between maybe a dozen. When i signed my 'contract' i had G4 and now i dont but i pay the same. How is that not breach?

Content/carrier negotiations with cable companies have gotten insane over the last few years. The recent Cablevision and FOX war that shutdown the World Series was a lopsided monopoly bullying their carriers into accepting their insane rates. Even my CEO was calling for govt intervention on this bullshit.

SineSwiper wrote:Content/carrier negotiations with cable companies have gotten insane over the last few years. The recent Cablevision and FOX war that shutdown the World Series was a lopsided monopoly bullying their carriers into accepting their insane rates. Even my CEO was calling for govt intervention on this bullshit.

Which World Series was shut down?

SineSwiper wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-0 ... blame.html

Wow, that's crazy. I guess gone were the days when content providers did all they could to get as many viewers as possible in order to increase ad revenue. Now they want the delivery men to pay to make them money too. Fucking figures with companies like Fox and Disney behind it. Just FYI, we had no issues of the sort up here, all the games were televised. That's why I was wondering what you were referring to.

Hmm, getting others to pay for something that you should provide for free in order to enhance your products and increase your income from your products (or to cut down your costs). I wonder what other form of entertainment we've seen that in? Or what financial industry that's gotten out of control in, so much that (at least in Canada) there's lots of grumbling to control those implied oligopolistic practices?

See my boss's comments on the matter: http://www.michaelsinsight.com/2010/11/ ... fault.html

He's right. Fox basically has a monopoly on these things and they are abusing it.

So why isn't the FCC intervening?

Under what authority?

SineSwiper wrote:Under what authority?

Their authority as the agency which oversees the industry. If they don't have any particular authority due to the retardedness of those who made up the rules, they should be changed . The entire point of government and their agencies to even exist is that we don't have pure capitalism ruling our society. This, in theory, is why you vote, to ensure that your (as a representative of the public) best interests are being met.

In this particular case, it was quite clear that the best intentions of the public were not even considered. That's why the FCC exists, to ensure it does. Just because two companies are in a dispute over transfer pricing it doesn't mean that the public should be left wanting. They're paying for the service which, when they purchased it, included access to stations which air the World Series. Therefore, they should get it, period. It's essentially an involuntary breach of contract by the service provider because of the actions of the content provider and exactly the type of thing the FCC exists to regulate.

Of course, this assumes that the gov't agencies are impartial and void of corruption. As we've seen up here with the CRTC, fat chance of that happening.

The FCC isn't really corrupt; they just don't have much authority. Sure, they can issue fines for saying the word "fuck", but these battles between content providers and cable/satellite companies have been going on for years. It's just gotten worse over the last few years, because the content providers now realize that they have a monopoly on these things, and can ask whatever the hell they want for a price.

Here's an article on the matter and FCC's involvement: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-2 ... -spat.html

SineSwiper wrote:The FCC isn't really corrupt; they just don't have much authority. Sure, they can issue fines for saying the word "fuck", but these battles between content providers and cable/satellite companies have been going on for years. It's just gotten worse over the last few years, because the content providers now realize that they have a monopoly on these things, and can ask whatever the hell they want for a price.

Here's an article on the matter and FCC's involvement: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-2 ... -spat.html

Just proves my point. The monopolistic practices and bullying by News Corp is clearly against the public interest. The government and it's agency, the FCC, exists SOLELY to ensure the public's interests are taken care of. In this case, the FCC is handicapped and can't do anything even though it almost seems like they want to. Thus, the law should be changed. Period, end of story. If this doesn't happen, your government is failing you (well, at least those 3 million customers who are subscribers to Cablevision). I'm no American historian, but isn't there something in your constitution about the public doing something if their government fails to function?

I know it sounds extreme to think about it in terms of over-throwing a government for something like this, but you gotta treat these corporations like they're spoiled children who don't even listen to reason because they don't (they are soulless, moral-less individuals in the eyes of the legal system, after all). Nothing, and I mean nothing, other than fear of consequences will ever work. And it boils down to the public's fault for not ensuring their government acts in their best interest. Clearly, voting for the other idiot(s) who will allow the same shit to occur isn't going to change anything. Your vote sure as shit ain't gonna change nothing (I can actually hear Kup's aneurysm forming over that double negative). And this particular incident is only a very minute microcosm of the overall financial environment. The concern should be much more with why this happened, not what actually happened. In the end, if your government doesn't function........

On a side note, this type of situation should also indicate to you that you do not live in a society where democracy is king. It's capitalism with the illusion of democracy.