# Fighting extra charges for paper bills - Telus Mobility



## fersure

*Fighting new e-billing charges-Telus Mobility*

Does anyone have any experience in fighting Telus Mobility (or any corporation) in their move to paper billing? Recently, Telus Mobility began charging $2 a month for customers who refused to sign up for e-billing and support the tax write off charity scam (you know, sign up for e-billing and we'll "donate" $1 to x charity). I have escalated my challenge of this extra fee to the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, but doubt this will work.

I am challenging Telus' billing based on the following:
1) I am a long-term customer (acquired when Telus took over Clearnet)
2) I have a three year contract with Telus (fortunately, ending January 2011), which stipulates what they can charge. (Going through the fine print, there is no mention of fee to receive a bill.)
3) While my contract stipulate that Telus can elect to deliver my bill electronically, it again does not stipulate that it can charge if I refuse this service.

Surely, I can't be the only one affected by this? For the record, I'm tee'd off by the principle of Telus violating the terms of our signed contract, rather than phony environmentalism assoicated with e-billing.

____________
Update: May 20, 2011
In case anyone was wondering, here's what happened with my dispute with Telus Mobility over their illegal billing practices.

1) I submitted a complaint with the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Service. In my complaint, I explicitly stated that I wished all communication with Telus Mobility in writing.

2) I received two voice messages from the President's Office (yeah, right) from Telus mobility, one on Christmas Eve and one on New Years eve. I did not respond to either message.

3) CCTS wrote in January asking if my claimed had been resolved. As I had not received written communication from Telus Mobility acknowledging my complaint, I said it was not. I was then assigned a case worker for my case.

4) The case worker took my case to Telus, who offered a $20 credit (equal to 10 months of billing service). However, the case worker said that she could not investigate me claim that Telus was violating the terms of my contract by charging me an extra fee, because the CCTS CANNOT INVESTGIATE CELL PHONE COMPANY BILLING PRACTICES.

5) I requested that in order to close my file, that Telus Mobility write me indicating why they were providing me a $20 credit. I never received such a letter, just a credit on my bill. The CCTS subsequently closed my complaint.

6) I've closed my Telus Mobility account, and currently do not have a cell phone. I have also written my local MP (Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore, and the former Industry Minister expressing my dissatisfaction with the current voluntary corporate regulatory body (the CCTS), which has no power re: billing to hold the cell companies accountable for illegal billing practice. Sometimes you need big government to come in hold these companies accountable!

7) I strongly urge anyone else who was illegally billed by Telus for their contract-breaking charge for their unilateral switch to paperless billing to follow up with the CCTS and the Industry Minister.


----------



## kcowan

I sympathize with your concern. I have resisted ebilling too because I had to keep hard copy records for tax reasons. But because I have renwewed most contracts in recent times, I have gradually been forced into ebilling.

So I have accepted it as inevitable. I know it is cheaper for me to print a pdf than for Telus to print, sort, and mail my bill. I suppose those extra savings will eventually show up in corporate profits.

What has been the experience of others?


----------



## sprocket1200

i agree with kcowan. ebill and print, then buy shares to benefit from the profits...

what i really hate is them changing HOW you can pay the bill. sometimes credit cards not accepted with autobilling, sometimes they are.


----------



## brad

No sympathy from me here, I'm afraid. I am a fan of e-billing and support the policy of making people pay to get paper statements. E-billing is cheaper and uses fewer resources; it should be the standard for the future. If you want to be the exception and receive paper statements you should have to pay for it. Same principle goes for food shopping bags: if you bring your own, you don't pay, if you want to use the bags provided by the grocery store, you pay.

The transition to a new system is painful because it sucks having to pay for something that used to be "free," but ultimately it's a better system. I've been getting almost all my bills and all of my banking statements electronically for a few years now and it sure beats having to keep paper files. I haven't had to print anything yet, but I save everything as PDFs and back them up offsite. I got rid of two filing cabinets that I no longer needed and now have a lot more room in my home office.


----------



## Taxsaver

Nobody answered this question: Where in the contract does it say that they can charge the fee for print invoice?


----------



## Mandy101

*Telus*

I don't think it says anywhere in their contract that they can charge for this but I'm sure they are just able to cover it up by saying they are being enviromentally friendly. It is better for the enviroment and what I started doing is just saving a PDF of my bill each month.


----------



## the-royal-mail

This is yet another scam from an industry that has gotten fat on such billing practices. Never mind the tree-hugger rhetoric: they are doing this because it saves money for them and raises their profit level, and get to claim browny points for being green. Hogwash. If they were concerned about being green they wouldn't be in a business which fills our landfills with millions of useless handsets every year, rendered useless by ever-changing service plans and upgrades. This perpetual obsolescense makes them very rich. That's what it's all about. Making people pay for getting a paper bill is a money grab, plain and simple.


----------



## furgy

I was just talking to a good friend of mine about this the other day.

He phoned and complained but the person on the other end said there was nothing that could be done about it , so he said he would cancel his service with them and asked to be put thru to cancellations.

After about 30 seconds or so , someone else answered and said the only thing they could do , was to offer another service for free , so they are going to stop charging him for call waiting and voice mail , which he was paying $6 per month for , so he will actually be ahead by $4 , the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

He has service with them but not under contract , I myself have a contract for a 3G internet and cell phone , I see no where in the contract that allows them to do that , I will be challenging it as well , maybe I can get the same deal.

So yes , it can be challenged , and they will give something up to those who threaten to cancel service , I think everyone should ***** to them about it.


----------



## Square Root

the-royal-mail said:


> This is yet another scam from an industry that has gotten fat on such billing practices. Never mind the tree-hugger rhetoric: they are doing this because it saves money for them and raises their profit level, and get to claim browny points for being green. Hogwash. If they were concerned about being green they wouldn't be in a business which fills our landfills with millions of useless handsets every year, rendered useless by ever-changing service plans and upgrades. This perpetual obsolescense makes them very rich. That's what it's all about. Making people pay for getting a paper bill is a money grab, plain and simple.


I disagree. If it is cheaper to e-bill they should charge you less. That's what they are doing. Thete are lots of things i don't like about these companies but this isn't one of them.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Not true. The bill cost x before the change. They are charging x + 1 if you wish to maintain status quo. That's an increase. Those who take a cheaper (for the company) service pay the same price as before when they were getting more for their money. How is this not an increase?

You would be right if they were charging x -1 if you e-bill.


----------



## Berubeland

Square Root said:


> I disagree. If it is cheaper to e-bill they should charge you less. That's what they are doing. Thete are lots of things i don't like about these companies but this isn't one of them.


I totally agree. That's not what they are doing... they are adding $2 to the bill plus tax. 

If they were to credit ebillers with $2 that would be both legal and correct. 

Lets see how it works out. 

Paper bill $50 + $2 = $52 + tax
Ebill $50 + tax

Under my proposed system $50 - $2 = $48 plus tax

After all they save money on envelopes... and stamps and personnel required to manage the system etc. The difference is 4$ per customer I'm not sure how many customers they have but we're talking millions per year in extra profit.


----------



## plen

Heh you can bet if they creditted existing accounts for opting in to e-billing it wouldn't be $2. It would be the price of a stamp, an envelope and administrative fees to the exact penny.

Probably something like $0.5813451


----------



## HaroldCrump

I keep refusing to switch to e-billing for most of my bills.
Some companies are more pushy than others, such as Bell.
For the supplier, there is indeed a cost to e-billing as well.
The development and maintenance of the website, 24x7 uptime, the storage and archival of all historical bills, etc.
Arguably, it may be marginally cheaper for them if customers switched to e-bills.
I doubt though that the savings for the supplier are substantial enough to pass on as a credit to the consumers.

I refuse to switch because a paper bill forces me to review and analyze the bill every month and catch errors.
Again, some companies are more notorious than others for "errors" in the bills.
The more automatic everything is, the more lazy we get and don't catch errors.

A paper bill also has the effect of staring us in the face every month and reminding us exactly how much we are spending on our "services" each month, such as television, cell phone etc.
With Internet billing, out of sight is out of mind, which works to their advantage.
This "in-the-face" factor has made me re-negotiate and modify my services several times to reduce the total bill.

Eventually, everyone may be forced to switch by punitive paper bill charges.
Until then, I'll hold out as long as I can.


----------



## Taxsaver

Square Root said:


> I disagree. If it is cheaper to e-bill they should charge you less. That's what they are doing. Thete are lots of things i don't like about these companies but this isn't one of them.


Less than the non-e-billing or less than what they were paying before they switched to e-billing?

Anyway, just call them and argue until they give you something worthwhile in return.


----------



## Dana

brad said:


> No sympathy from me here, I'm afraid. I am a fan of e-billing and support the policy of making people pay to get paper statements. E-billing is cheaper and uses fewer resources; it should be the standard for the future. If you want to be the exception and receive paper statements you should have to pay for it...The transition to a new system is painful because it sucks having to pay for something that used to be "free,"...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, and if I were signing a new contract with a service provider and they stipulated a fee for paper-based billing as one of the covenants in that contract, that would be fine, but it is not acceptable, IMO, for service providers to change the terms and conditions of existing contracts mid-term.
> 
> I haven't taken a law course in a *lot* of years, but I seem to recall that a significant change to the terms and conditions of a contract by either party is grounds for termination of the contract. Am I remembering that correctly?
> 
> This is another example of 'big business' using their size and lack of competition to their advantage.
> 
> As a shareholder I am happy (fees = revenue), but as an existing customer I am pissed.
Click to expand...


----------



## brad

Dana said:


> but it is not acceptable, IMO, for service providers to change the terms and conditions of existing contracts mid-term.


On the other hand, I routinely receive amendments to contracts (e.g., from my credit card provider) and when I had a cell contract I often received amendments to that as well. I think I remember seeing some clause in the cellphone contract that gave the provider leeway to add new fees; typically this is allowed as long as the contract holder is notified of the change, although some contracts allow for unilateral changes. I haven't had a cellphone contract for several years now (I have a cell, but it's a contract-free arrangement), so I can't check my paperwork to verify the exact language.

I know it's the principle of the thing, but personally I'm not sure I would spend time pursuing a complaint that would save me $24/year.


----------



## Dana

brad said:


> On the other hand, I routinely receive amendments to contracts (e.g., from my credit card provider)


The difference is that I can choose to end my relationship with my credit card provider at any time with no fees. That is not the case with my cell phone provider where both parties entered into an agreement for a pre-determined length of time with terms and conditions determined at the time the contract was entered into. If they want to change the terms and conditions (the premise on which the contract is based) then I should have the option to accept and continue the relationship or decline and terminate the relationship. 

I agree with you about the $24 per year issue, it is not worthwhile fighting it on an individual basis, it is totally about principle, and surely these companies can see that the optics for them suck. The way they have handled this has done nothing to help their reputation with an already fee-weary-customer base.


----------



## the-royal-mail

brad said:


> On the other hand, I routinely receive amendments to contracts (e.g., from my credit card provider) and when I had a cell contract I often received amendments to that as well. I think I remember seeing some clause in the cellphone contract that gave the provider leeway to add new fees; typically this is allowed as long as the contract holder is notified of the change, although some contracts allow for unilateral changes. I haven't had a cellphone contract for several years now (I have a cell, but it's a contract-free arrangement), so I can't check my paperwork to verify the exact language.


What you are describing is a one-way street. It kind of confirms my assertions about these crooks. It's okay for them to do as you describe, but not okay for you?


----------



## GeniusBoy27

If the telecoms change the terms of the contract, you have every right to cancel the contract. If I remember correctly, there's been a recent court challenge about someone who had their terms of the contract changed, and they sued one of the big companies on the basis of change of the terms, and the company was forced to reimburse, allow cancelation of the contract, and pay for the legal fees.


----------



## the-royal-mail

brad said:


> I know it's the principle of the thing, but personally I'm not sure I would spend time pursuing a complaint that would save me $24/year.


Also this type of logic is exactly what business and gov't these days counts on. They figure if they just invent bogus fees and keep adding new ones from time to time, people will just accept it on the basis quoted above.


----------



## Sustainable PF

I have to fight with some companies to STOP SENDING ME PAPER. The junk piles up needlessly and while I repeatedly request they cease the paper billing, many do not. 

We barely even get to opening a lot of these bills now as we bank online.


----------



## HaroldCrump

the-royal-mail said:


> What you are describing is a one-way street. It kind of confirms my assertions about these crooks. It's okay for them to do as you describe, but not okay for you?


It is always ok for them to do as they please.
Bell recently increased my landline bill by $5 a month _while I am in a contract_.
When I called, according to them, the contract is only for the _service_ not for the pricing.

After a lot of heated discussion with the rep, and the supervisor, the bottom line was that the contract essentially protects them from me canceling my service at any time - yet it does not protect me from them increasing my rates any time without the ability to cancel.

The unfairness in this type of "contract" is unbelievable.

The only way I managed to get it reversed was by threatening to cancel *all* my services - a net loss of over $250 a month to Bell.
So they gave me back and forward credit for the $5 a month, even though they didn't reduce the charge.


----------



## K-133

Taxsaver said:


> Nobody answered this question: Where in the contract does it say that they can charge the fee for print invoice?


Where does it say you are entitled to a paper bill?

The only way I could see this change being argued, is that it discriminates against those with access to Internet.

I personally prefer e-billing as its easier to manage (store, sort, find, track). And though I sympathize with your frustration, I do not support your ideal. Unfortunately, things change and we must adapt.


----------



## the-royal-mail

K-133 said:


> Where does it say you are entitled to a paper bill?


Where does it say they may charge us for one?


----------



## fersure

Fergy, Dana, RTM, Harold and all:

Thanks for your feedback. I suppose the best thing for me to do will be ask for credits for voice-mail service or some other service.

Again, I'm not opposed to e-billing per se: indeed, I just signed up for my new TD Waterhouse account. Telus can make a condition of any FUTURE contracts or RENEWED contracts that all billing will be electronic. It should not, however, be permitted to add a new fee not agreed to by both parties during the life of an existing contract.

For bills, it psychological: having a physical bill - sent by a real company - means I have a real responsibility to pay the bill. My e-mail box is already overloaded: the last thing I need is to miss an e-bill or to have jammed up in a spam filter.

I am really annoyed that Telus is charging this fee, which I see as a clear violation of my contract. I fully agree that as Telus is reducing service (a paper bill), they should be REDUCING my bill, not charging me more for an inferior (IMO) service. To then wrap themselves in a green flag while getting tax write-off to the Nature Conservancy of Canada (which I am sure is a worthwhile organization) is ludicrous. If I want to donate to the NCC, I'll pay for it and get the tax deduction.

As I said, I have elevated my concerns to the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, which I understand is paid for by the various cellphone companies. (The CRTC won't handle such complaints). Does anyone have any experience in dealing with this organization?

Again, thanks for the suggestions and comments.


----------



## HaroldCrump

fersure -- you are _not_ protected by the contract.
The contract contains enough vague verbiage to ensure that they can charge you for anything, any amount, any time, with minimal notice.

A few years ago, Bell Sympatico increased by high speed internet fees while I was under a contract.
When I called, they said the contract allows them to increase the price as long as 1 billing cycle notice is given.
So I ask, where is the notice?
Oh we emailed you at your Sympatico email account last month.
I didn't even know that they had created a new email account for me.
I didn't have the password, didn't know it even existed.
So my emailing me at this account, their hands are clean.

The _only_ way you can ever get any justice with these guys is to threaten cancelation.
And cancelation threats won't work unless:
(1) you have a bundle of services with the same company and you threaten to cancel everything and that represents hundreds of dollars a month for them 
(2) you already have some services with a competing provider and threaten to move everything over to them.

I find that reps don't take the threats seriously unless one or both of above conditions are true.
Sometimes it may be worthwhile to have service from two different providers purely for the purpose of using this leverage with both.


----------



## brad

HaroldCrump said:


> The contract contains enough vague verbiage to ensure that they can charge you for anything, any amount, any time, with minimal notice.


If that's true and you're not willing to be bound by those terms, then you shouldn't accept the contract in the first place. As someone who spent three years as a contract negotiator, I can say that rule 1 is "Always Read Your Contract" before you agree to it. Once you've agreed to it by paying your first bill or signing the contract, you've nobody to blame but yourself if the provider exercises their rights under the contract.

It's probably impossible to get a home phone service without a contract, but it is possible to get cellphone service without a contract. It might even be possible to get internet service without a contract; I haven't looked into that.

When I worked as a university contract negotiator, we occasionally turned down multi-million-dollar contracts because we couldn't get the funding agency to agree to our terms. Our faculty had voted on strict standards for maintaining academic freedom to publish, and we weren't allowed to accept any contracts or grants that violated those rights. If you don't like the terms of a contract, you should first try to negotiate them, and if that doesn't work then you should walk away.

If you can't walk away (ie, you need to have telephone or internet service and there's no way to get it without a contract), then you have to realize that you've accepted the terms of the contract and you must live with them. Or you can work within the system to try to get the provider to change the terms of the contract....either by negotiating directly with the provider or with an overseeing agency.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Sorry brad, but I respectfully disagree with everything you are saying. Your comments show an extreme bias towards the telco in this case. And in this case the contract was changed midway through without the approval of or the signature of the other party. They write these contracts in a way that permits them to do this, but don't permit customers to change contracts in the same vein. 

It's not a contract if only one side has the ability to force arbitrary changes midway through. A true contract would be allowed to expire normally, then renewals would feature the new rules and costs.

The way these companies change contracts on the fly is criminal. The gov't is supposed to protect us from crap like this. Unfortunately for consumers and taxpayers, the cell phone lobby has the gov't in their back pockets.

I can't believe the number of you guys who are intoxicated on corporate kool aid on this matter. Stand up and think for yourselves instead of merely accepting these asinine ever-changing terms.


----------



## brad

the-royal-mail said:


> And in this case the contract was changed midway through without the approval of or the signature of the other party.


Do we know for certain that the terms of the contract were changed, or merely the fees? Was the contract written in such a way as to allow Telus to change the fees unilaterally without consent of the contract holder? If so, then Telus has every legal right to do that.

I'm not trying to paint Telus in a positive light; I detest the cell providers as much as anyone (I've been with Bell, Telus, and now Fido, and so far Fido is the only one I've been remotely happy with). But I'm saying that if you're going to enter into a contract you have the responsibility to read the contract terms before you agree to them. If you don't, and you don't understand your rights (and lack of rights) under the contract you just signed, then it's hard to see how you can justify complaining when Telus does something they were permitted to do under their contract.


----------



## K-133

Royal 

They are not charging for a bill, they are adding the service 'paper bill' to your list of services, and charging you for the additional service. You remain with the option not to register for the paper bill service if you choose, and hence not pay a fee for the service.

Check your invoice - see Paper Bill Service or something similar.

It may not be good practice to tell people how to deal with your business, but I don't think using the Internet as a default is discriminatory - in fact, I think its quite the opposite in this country.


----------



## HaroldCrump

In my case, the contract was not being changed by the provider (Bell).
They were merely doing something that the contract did not cover in the first place (price changes).
brad, it is indeed possible to have telephone, cell phone and internet service without a contract - as long as one is prepared to pay the rack rates.
The contract is required to get a discount off the rack rates.
But nothing, not even the contract, protects the consumer from rate increases mid way through the term of the contract.
This is a game that the telcos are playing on their home ground, with their rules, and their umpires.
The only weapon the end consumer has is to negotiate with the threat of cancelation and switching to a competitor.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.


----------



## Pigzfly

Thanks for this thread folks, it (and an older one on communications costs) reminded me to call Telus and cut out a bunch of stuff that we no longer use (change in employment for me). Saved $22/month after tax, ie $264/yr.
One would have to be a fool to fall for their weak attempt to stop you from dropping services. 
Telus - "I would recommend against this as you will lose the benefit of being able to send 250 text messages at a low rate." 
Me - "Look at the usage, he sent 18 last month, mostly to the share number, so they are free." 
Telus - "You will lose the ease of being able to place unlimited calls starting at 5 pm." 
Me - "We still have half of our shared daytime minutes left, I think we'll be okay." 

*sigh*

The best part was when they offered me a "special offer" of instant messaging, web surfing, streaming tv and email. It was an additional 50 MB of data for... $7 extra a month! The smallest data package is 500 MB and I always use fewer than 100MB. 

Note - all of the major phone companies have a policy of charging $450 as a disconnection fee for any data plans. I do not yet know anyone who has successfully avoided this charge. It's a doozy.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Pigzfly said:


> ...all of the major phone companies have a policy of charging $450 as a disconnection fee for any data plans.....


Highway robbery. Criminal. Where is the gov't to protect citizens from crap like this and bogus one-sided contracts?


----------



## fersure

K-133 said:


> Royal
> 
> They are not charging for a bill, they are adding the service 'paper bill' to your list of services, and charging you for the additional service. You remain with the option not to register for the paper bill service if you choose, and hence not pay a fee for the service.
> 
> Check your invoice - see Paper Bill Service or something similar.
> 
> It may not be good practice to tell people how to deal with your business, but I don't think using the Internet as a default is discriminatory - in fact, I think its quite the opposite in this country.



I respectfully disagree: it is not an additional service. It is changing the terms of an existing services without my consent. I have received paper bills from Telus Mobility/Clearnet since 2001. The contract (section 2 of the TM contract) states Telus can shift to e-delivery at any time during the course of the contract: and I'm fine with that! The contract, however, DOES NOT state that Telus Mobility can charge an ADDITIONAL FEE on top of all fees to which I agreed to at the signing of the contract. When signing the contract, I received paper bills: that service should continue until such time as 
a) I terminate service with Telus Mobility.
b) I renegotiate my service with TM, and a clause about an additional fee for paper billing is included in the contract (which I sign)
c) Telus renegotiates the terms of the existing contract, and I agree in writing, or
d) Telus terminates me as a customer. 

The exact language in my contract (Section 2, for anyone with TM) reads as follows:

TELUS may bill you exclusively by posting your invoice on the Internet. If TELUS bills you through Internet posting, you agree that (i) you shall receive your bill, and applicable late payment charges shall begin to accrue, when TELUS posts your bill online at the website specified in the notice and (ii) you waive pre-notification of the amounts and dates of debits from your account.

I realise this is about only $2 a month. But when you multiply this by the number of Telus Mobility customers, and you begin to talk about some serious coin.


----------



## HaroldCrump

fersure said:


> I realise this is about only $2 a month. But when you multiply this by the number of Telus Mobility customers, and you begin to talk about some serious coin.


Right, and that is how these guys are ripping off millions of customers on a daily basis.
These companies give a rat's arse for the environment.
The printed bills and the mail envelopes these days are all produced through recycled paper.
I store the bill and recycle the envelope, in addition to all the marketing junk they send with each bill.
This is a self-sustaining cycle.

We have examined several aspects of this issue in this discussion.
I'd suggest that you either:
(1) negotiate away that fee by asking them to either waive it, or offer you some other promotional service
(2) refuse the paper bill and adapt yourself to the online bill until your contract is up.
(3) once the contract is up, ask them for a discounted service or they can shove it


----------



## carverman

the-royal-mail said:


> This is yet another scam from an industry that has gotten fat on such billing practices. Never mind the tree-hugger rhetoric: they are doing this because it saves money for them and raises their profit level, and get to claim browny points for being green. Hogwash. If they were concerned about being green they wouldn't be in a business which fills our landfills with millions of useless handsets every year, rendered useless by ever-changing service plans and upgrades. This perpetual obsolescense makes them very rich. That's what it's all about. Making people pay for getting a paper bill is a money grab, plain and simple.


So far Bell, isn't charging me for mailing paper bills, but they are charging
me for cell phone air time to call them on their 611 service number and
other 1-800 Bell numbers, so I suppose they are making up for it by
pushing my air time usuage over the monthly contract so they can charge
me .20c a minute after I exceed the contract.

I do have a e-bill system with them as well, but since I'm switching, I
don't think it really matters as the new service provider is much cheaper
and is set up for e-billing to save on their costs..and mine as well.

As far as paper bills, most institutions build that into their service charges
like the banks. I'm with a virtual bank online and print off
my own statements. They do still send me a credit card statement every
month, even though I have access to that. I suppose they charge
enough with their interest rates, that they can still afford to do it for now.

As far as my banking statement, they used to send me a monthly printed
statement for free in the late 90s, then later on sent me a notice with
my monthly statement that if I still wanted to get them for free, I would
have to take advantage of their online statements and print them off
myself, other wise it would cost a $1 to get my statment..deducted from
my acct. Since they weren't charging me a monthly service fee..I complied,
as the $12 might as well be in my own pocket.

It seems that everyone is going that way these days..except
maybe the credit card companies.
Most of the current population have access to the internet and
own computers. It's the older generation, the computer illiterates, and
perhaps the low income cases..(although some of them also have computers) that
still have to rely on paper bills. With mailing costs going up each year,
I can see why this is happening more and more, not to mention heavy competition amongst
the Telcos for customer revenue, which tends to cut customer service to the bone.

Whether this is a good argument to take to the Telcos, or other institutions
is debateable...most will tell you that this is outside of the contract and
a service that they provide which you should pay for extra..even if they
also win by donating the dollar to charity. 

There are many so called scams out there today...the hydro bill "Provincial
Benefit" extra charge is far more serious and penalizing for going to
a energy retailer, than the mailing costs "value added service".


----------



## carverman

Pigzfly said:


> Note - all of the major phone companies have a policy of charging $450 as a disconnection fee for any data plans. I do not yet know anyone who has successfully avoided this charge. It's a doozy.


Perhaps, if you signed up with a 3 year contract, to get a "free phone" out 
of them, then yes..they can charge you so much a month for the unexpired
portion of your contract..it is a contract after all. Try to get out of a car
lease contract..and you will see how much you will have to pay for that
privilege..not to mention "wear and tear" on the car.

Getting back to phone companies...if you don't have a contract or the
contract is expired, then you are deemed to be on month to month
with them. All you have to do is provided at least 30 days notice(by mail)
that you are dropping them as a service provider, to avoid another months
billing. I made this mistake with Rogers TV...switched without giving them
a months notice, and had to pay them an extra month for that mistake,
even though I had returned the HD Box the day I switched.

It's hard to win at these games, the service providers build in hidden fees
to penalize you if you decide to go for another more lucrative offer.


----------



## carverman

HaroldCrump said:


> (3) once the contract is up, ask them for a discounted service or they can shove it


Well, good luck with that. I tried a similar argument with Bell in regards to
cell phone air time usuage to straighten out a billing issue, where they
had overbilled me twice. Besides emails and phone calls, it took several
weeks to get the overcharge credit back and only by more phone calls.

When that pushed my monthly airtime usuage over the 200 min monthly
limit, they charged me .20c a minute (even if it's not a full minute) on
all subsquent calls after that. I called about that and complained about
one specific 20 minute call to Bell where they left me on hold...I was
told basically (too bad in a very polite manner),
EVERYONE CHARGES FOR AIR TIME USAGE. 
"Now is there anything else we can help you with today?" 

So they didn't give me a credit for $4 for that 20 minutes of air time
that I used to call them..and lost me as a long time customer.


----------



## carverman

fersure said:


> IThe exact language in my contract (Section 2, for anyone with TM) reads as follows:
> 
> TELUS may bill you exclusively by posting your invoice on the Internet. If TELUS bills you through Internet posting, you agree that (i) you shall receive your bill, and applicable late payment charges shall begin to accrue, when TELUS posts your bill online at the website specified in the notice and (ii) you waive pre-notification of the amounts and dates of debits from your account.


Well reading the fine print of the contract you signed can provide many
unknown details about their service.

The way I interpret that is they have to get some kind of agreement from
you that an e-bill is acceptable in your contract with them. And if you
decide not to look at it when it is posted..or ignore it, then late payment
charges will acrue. But this is no different than receiving a paper bill
in the mail, where you set it aside past the due date....
so I can't see how this has anything to do with the extra charge for their
paper bill.


----------



## HaroldCrump

carverman said:


> So they didn't give me a credit for $4 for that 20 minutes of air time that I used to call them..and lost me as a long time customer.


There you go...that's the way to do it.
Vote with your feet.
With the number of players in this field and competition slowly increasing, losing long-time customers will begin to hurt these giant monopolies like Bell and Rogers.


----------



## voodooriver

*Telus mobility are a bunch of hypocrites*

Fersure,

I share your frustration. I just received my TM bill and discovered the $2 paper bill charge. I have been with Telus for many years and I find it mind boggling that with all the new competition in the market they decide to treat their customers like a bunch of ignorants.

And for all the tree lovers out here in this board please wake up. We all recycle, and the paper industry has been taking care of its own forests for many, many years now. 

All Telus cares about is its bottom line and the return on investment on millions of dollars of IT infrastructure which some CEO has pushed for and probably ended up costing much more than planned. 

If Telus cared so much about the environment, why would they offer a FREE CALENDAR which I assume is printed on paper. I believe 99% of all cell phones have a calendar application. REALLY A GREAT IDEA TELUS!


----------



## Dansmoney

*Changes Since ClearNet Days*

I have been a customer since the ClearNet days, when contracts were written in clear, simple, language - and the bonus coupons were of some value. This is before the time of SMS, GPS, Apps, and Web access. Although my old ClearNet records have been put away, I recall a $20/mnth plan, including 200 minutes, 10 cents roaming perhaps (or was it long distance), voice mail, caller ID, personal voice message, free system information at 611, along with system access charges. This monthly bill came to about $30. I have never changes the plan, nor signed a contract since that time. Telus assumes that use of their service implies agreement with whatever contract they wish to issue. Since I generally use each phone for several years, well beyond the three-year offerings, none of the phones have necessitated signing anything beyond my credit card slip. Only one phone needed cash - and that due to replacing a $400 phone after it flipped (while biking) out of a case recommended to me by the store rep. 
The only change I have made to payment method over these years is online payment instead of mailed cheques. This change alone has saved Telus a lot of money in processing fees. 
Yes, I am one of the fortunate old timers, with my own Internet access (about $30 per month for DSL). I could easily give Telus my email address (which they would likely sell) and print my own invoices, on paper that I paid for (without business a deduction or tax loophole). Sure, my paper, printing and connectivity costs, shared amongst all billers, would save them money. Which, of course, they will not pass along to me, even though I bear the costs for this convenience to them. I notice, also, that my personalized voice message no longer plays - just the Telus default. I seldom use anywhere near the maximum minutes. I never use the birthday minutes, and I never redeem the coupons. Connectivity is flakey at the cottage. A couple of times, I’ve used the ‘free’ calendar. No longer! Why would I advertise for a company like this? They have confiscated $2 + tax per month from me, with no legal right to do so. I guess it’s time for a prepaid. I should be able to cut costs by at least $150/year.


----------



## awall2

*telus junkmail*

I am also a long time customer with a year left on my contract, paper billing is not a new service as it has been part of the service for the 13+ years. I would be interested if anyone starts a class action law suit against this. Also, to all you tree huggers, if telus is so concerned with the environment how come they send me so much junk mail, with my bill and again at the middle of the month.


----------



## fersure

*Non-Resolution and the uselessness of the CCTS*

In case anyone was wondering, here's what happened with my dispute with Telus Mobility over their illegal billing practices.

1) I submitted a complaint with the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Service. In my complaint, I explicitly stated that I wished all communication with Telus Mobility in writing.

2) I received two voice messages from the President's Office (yeah, right) from Telus mobility, one on Christmas Eve and one on New Years eve. I did not respond to either message.

3) CCTS wrote in January asking if my claimed had been resolved. As I had not received written communication from Telus Mobility acknowledging my complaint, I said it was not. I was then assigned a case worker for my case.

4) The case worker took my case to Telus, who offered a $20 credit (equal to 10 months of billing service). However, the case worker said that she could not investigate me claim that Telus was violating the terms of my contract by charging me an extra fee, because the CCTS CANNOT INVESTGIATE CELL PHONE COMPANY BILLING PRACTICES.

5) I requested that in order to close my file, that Telus Mobility write me indicating why they were providing me a $20 credit. I never received such a letter, just a credit on my bill. The CCTS subsequently closed my complaint.

6) I've closed my Telus Mobility account, and currently do not have a cell phone. I have also written my local MP (Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore, and the former Industry Minister expressing my dissatisfaction with the current voluntary corporate regulatory body (the CCTS), which has no power re: billing to hold the cell companies accountable for illegal billing practice. Sometimes you need big government to come in hold these companies accountable!

7) I strongly urge anyone else who was illegally billed by Telus for their contract-breaking charge for their unilateral switch to paperless billing to follow up with the CCTS and the Industry Minister.


----------



## Mark Rose

I've been a happy Telus customer for 7 years now. Compared to most other big companies I've dealt with, dealing with Telus has been a pleasure.

I was a bit annoyed at the paying for the bill thing, but on the other hand, every year I get more service for less price, and anything to keep that trend going is a good thing in my book.

I know Telus is trying to pitch it as a tree hugger move, but the reality mailing cost alone is over 50 cents, not to mention the paper, the printing, folding, stuffing machines (capital and running costs), etc. Why waste all that money sending the dead tree edition to subscribers that only look at the total and chuck?


----------



## Driver

*papaer billing charge*

I called telus and told them that the $2 plus HST was nothing more than a cash grab and the cost of the paper was built into their cost of doing business and that i will deduct the 2 dollars and 24 cent hst from my bill and they could take me to court. The telus reprisentive said that she would make sure that charge would no longer show up on my monthly bill.


----------



## KaeJS

^ You should never mention court to a corporation. They will just laugh at you and make you look foolish.

Its a simple phone call. Tell them you're pissed, you aren't paying it, and they will remove it.

They are not going to risk losing a client for $2.00.


----------



## Homerhomer

brad said:


> No sympathy from me here, I'm afraid. I am a fan of e-billing and support the policy of making people pay to get paper statements. E-billing is cheaper and uses fewer resources; it should be the standard for the future. If you want to be the exception and receive paper statements you should have to pay for it. Same principle goes for food shopping bags: if you bring your own, you don't pay, if you want to use the bags provided by the grocery store, you pay.
> 
> .


Agree, less garbage is better, less resources to be used to transport the garbage is better, the less garbage there is the less we our property tax may be increased (that's utopia, but in theory that's how it should be ;-)

The inconvinience of having to sign up for e-bills or having to read statements online (especially for folks who spend hours on online forums ;-), my god ;-)

Anyone complaining about Telus share price ;-)


----------



## Argonaut

I like the move, as a Telus shareholder and Telus customer. Mail is so 19th Century, we should be moving to a paperless society. But I know from working at the bank, and reading this thread here.. that people can become very upset over $1 or $2 charges. This is understandable.


----------

