Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
teleguitar wrote: Stop lying and spinning things. You're disgusting....

Do you have even a shred of evidence to suggest that Bell is hiding cash, or otherwise is collecting money from customers and not reporting that revenue to investors in their financial reports?
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Sr. Member
Aug 11, 2006
851 posts
152 upvotes
Toronto
Mark77 wrote: Do you have even a shred of evidence to suggest that Bell is hiding cash, or otherwise is collecting money from customers and not reporting that revenue to investors in their financial reports?

Can give you a great example...

Charge $80
Promo Credit $30
Taxes Collected $10.40

Revenue $50
Taxes remitted to Gov't $6.50

Taxes sitting in an asset account $3.90

The $3.90 sits in an asset account and never shows up as Revenue.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
Pranman wrote: Can give you a great example...
Charge $80
Promo Credit $30
Taxes Collected $10.40
Revenue $50
Taxes remitted to Gov't $6.50
Taxes sitting in an asset account $3.90
The $3.90 sits in an asset account and never shows up as Revenue.

I'm not an accountant, nor am I deeply familiar with how the rules work for stuff like this, but if a tax is collected, the tax amounts are held 'in trust' for the government and are payable to the government, net of input tax credits, on demand from the government. It is a fairly serious offense if the amount of tax collected from customers for the provision of goods and services != the amount of tax remitted to the government net of input credits.

In this case, if you have evidence of Bell not remitting and paying taxes correctly, the Canada Revenue Agency has a hotline for which you can report such on an anonymous basis.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Sr. Member
Aug 11, 2006
851 posts
152 upvotes
Toronto
Mark77 wrote: I'm not an accountant, nor am I deeply familiar with how the rules work for stuff like this, but if a tax is collected, the tax amounts are held 'in trust' for the government and are payable to the government, net of input tax credits, on demand from the government. It is a fairly serious offense if the amount of tax collected from customers for the provision of goods and services != the amount of tax remitted to the government net of input credits.

In this case, if you have evidence of Bell not remitting and paying taxes correctly, the Canada Revenue Agency has a hotline for which you can report such on an anonymous basis.

And this is where Bell is an unethical company.
I as a customer have notified them many times of this but they have a way around it to avoid legal consquenses. I understand how they do it, but won't share that on an open board.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
Pranman wrote: And this is where Bell is an unethical company.
I as a customer have notified them many times of this but they have a way around it to avoid legal consquenses. I understand how they do it, but won't share that on an open board.

Then ultimately those techniques you claim/allege exist get booked as enhancements to revenue if they are legal. An extra $3 (in your example) still doesn't make much of a difference, nor does it validate a claim that Bell is overcharging by 10X-100X as has been made by the Teksavvy personnel.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 11, 2008
9433 posts
470 upvotes
Mark77 wrote: Then ultimately those techniques you claim/allege exist get booked as enhancements to revenue if they are legal. An extra $3 (in your example) still doesn't make much of a difference, nor does it validate a claim that Bell is overcharging by 10X-100X as has been made by the Teksavvy personnel.

I believe the claim of 10X-100X is the charge they want for an extra GB that is transmitted. The incremental cost to transmit that GB was not the $X that Bell wanted to charge. In their rationalization, they omitted the real issue is when people transmit that GB ie if there's congestion. Is that not dishonest? Cuz they talk about congestion yet their pricing only deals with how much you transmit.

Cuz even Bell's own pricing that they previously proposed for resellers had it at 20c/GB... ($200/TB)
How much did Bell want to charge? $2 at least right? 10X 20cents is $2, right? unless my math is wrong.
http://business.financialpost.com/2011/ ... -proposal/
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 28, 2005
3903 posts
207 upvotes
Toronto
teleguitar wrote: Surely, people already know here that Bell owns CTV, too.

These pages should be read, also.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5611/125/

http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments ... sociation/

Those are only a couple, though.

That needs to change I have a problem with telcos owning content. They should pass a law banning this practice, as you can see here Bell has already pulled dick moves:
http://www.wernerpatels.com/2011/10/ctv ... customers/

"CTV/Bellmedia withholding content from non-Bell customers"

"Remember what was said when telcos in Canada started scooping up TV networks and cable assets? It was said that when the likes of Bell, Shaw or Rogers are allowed to own media content, such as Canada’s broadcast TV networks, they will start making such content available only to their own phone or mobile subscribers. Canada’s regulator, the CRTC, was on the ball immediately and forced concessions out of those companies to the effect that they promised to play nice. Well, Bellmedia has already broken that trust."

How anyone can defend a company like bell says a lot about their character.
Deal Addict
Mar 18, 2009
1447 posts
284 upvotes
Renous
Greed - underlined , bold , and italics

Anyone on Bell's side is concerned with one thing, money. They don't care about any flimsy argument they might present, just money. Bell is losing revenue from their TV / Phone division, and people are using Bell's own services in place of them (VOIP, Netflix, etc). Bell doesn't like this, so they jack up the price. Everything else is moot.
Reserved for future time travellers
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
patpond wrote: Anyone on Bell's side is concerned with one thing, money.
Of course. Money is what makes the networks, upgrading the networks, and building new networks possible. Without money, eventually the system's capacity is depleted, and your Internet connection resembles something very much less than what you paid for.

They don't care about any flimsy argument they might present, just money. Bell is losing revenue from their TV / Phone division, and people are using Bell's own services in place of them (VOIP, Netflix, etc). Bell doesn't like this, so they jack up the price. Everything else is moot.

There are real and solid reasons why Bell must implement tarrifs in order to, in a competitive environment, earn adequate revenue to sustain the systems, repay the capital used to construct them, and plan for the next generation of systems to provide customer service.

Bell is being responsible here by asking for price increases when they are needed, rather than being mentally handicapped like the people at Ontario Hydro/OPG who created a situation of a massive amount of stranded debt because of decades of mismanagement and under-charging.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Jr. Member
User avatar
Sep 16, 2011
153 posts
14 upvotes
CALGARY
The CRTC is useless, with a MAJORITY govt Harper has no pressure to fix this issue.
Finally the voice of the West is going to be heard
Boycott Rogers!
Avoid their credit card, cell phone, internet, home phone and cable services at all costs!
Use your antenna and get FREE HDTV over the air instead of Robbers cable.
--- Yet another Robbers rate increase
http://www.digitalhome.ca/2011/01/roger ... march-1st/
--- Even worse in 2012
http://www.rogers.com/web/content/rate-increase-info
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
Kareem403 wrote: The CRTC is useless, with a MAJORITY govt Harper has no pressure to fix this issue.
Finally the voice of the West is going to be heard

And what's your agreement or disagreement with this latest decision?

Politicians generally can't create telecom infrastructure. All they can do is set policy, such that, industry participants make the decision to invest (or not invest) in infrastructure as it is needed for the present and the future.

Any time a politician meddles, the risk investing in the industry generally goes up. Tony Clement's actions were extremely damaging to the investment climate for Canadian telecom. CRTC's open access provisions are also very damaging to the investment climate. Ultimately, this causes service to suffer for all of us, and raises the cost of capital for existing industry participants.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 28, 2005
3903 posts
207 upvotes
Toronto
Toronto hydro needs to light up the dark fiber it laid in the downtown core and service all the new condos. And take all those clients from bell and rogers. Or Cogeco Data Services needs to expand their wifi service outside of the downtown core. Or this company needs to expand their wireless service to the general public:
http://www.icawireless.com/canadianwire ... boutus.asp

"All ICA Wireless services, which can be fully customized to meet the requirements of your business, deliver the following benefits:

Unlimited 24/7 Internet Access
A scaleable, high speed Internet connection, with speeds up to 100Mbps
A more cost effective, high performance alternative to dial-up, ISDN, ADSL, T1, T3 and Fiber Optic's.
An 'Always-On' connection - eliminates time wasted dialing in, waiting for emails and web pages to load
Fixed public IP address included in service
Unlimited number of users
Fast, professional installation Getting started with ICA Wireless service is quick, easy and trouble free. We install your service within 5 days of sign-up. A typical installation takes between one and two hours."

ICA Wireless is leading the NEW High Speed Internet revolution, building Canada's finest wireless network, uniquely to provide secure, reliable access to the Internet. Rather than using dial-up, leased line, cable modem or standard ADSL connection, signals are transmitted to your business through a small antenna on your roof. From the rooftop, data is sent directly to the ICA Wireless Backbone. After all, "The shortest distance between two points is in a straight line".

We need more companys like these to force bell and rogers to lower prices.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3208 upvotes
Calgary
edgedamage wrote: Toronto hydro needs to light up the dark fiber it laid in the downtown core and service all the new condos.
Go start a company, lease that fibre, and do it. I'm sure Toronto Hydro would love an incremental source of revenue.
"All ICA Wireless services, which can be fully customized to meet the requirements of your business, deliver the following benefits:

Unlimited 24/7 Internet Access
A scaleable, high speed Internet connection, with speeds up to 100Mbps
100mbit/sec, big deal. And those unlicensed wireless services are only useful if you have a line-of-sight to one of their facilities. Business users in downtown Toronto already have plenty of options. What we're talking about here is mainly residential users, in the 'burbs, who are stuck on DSL or cable.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...

Top