Canadian Industry Minister Calls Telco's out on Text Message Costs

by Rob Walker | July 10, 2008 at 10:20 am

166 views | 0 Recommendations | 0 comments

It is Industry Minister Jim Prentice's family use of cell phones that has brought the latest telco debacle to Ottawa. Earlier this week, Bell and Telus both announced they would start charging $0.15 for every single incoming text message.

Prentice claims that his family, including three young daughters split in cities around North America, uses text messaging to plan events and keep each other informed. He is concerned about the high costs for Canadian consumers and families and the reasoning behind it.

Now if only someone in Mr. Prentice's family would sit him down and explain Net Neutrality to him...

Industry Minister Jim Prentice, whose own family relies on text messaging to stay united, yesterday summoned the heads of Bell Canada and Telus Corp. to Ottawa to explain what he called "a poorly thought-out decision" to begin charging some customers for incoming text messages.
Mr. Prentice said he had no desire to interfere with the daily business decisions of the companies but he has a duty to protect the interests of consumers.

Within the 24 hours following news reports that the two companies will charge 15 cents for every message received by customers with prepaid plans, reaction was sudden and marked, he said.

Today's C-61 reform is particularly timely given yesterday's decision by Industry Minister Jim Prentice to demand that Bell and Telus account for their plans to charge for the receipt of text messages, a decision that Prentice described as "poorly thought-out." In the case of text message charges, the companies will presumably argue that their consumer contracts give them the right to alter charges and that this change is consistent with those rights. Prentice may rightly note the inequity of locking in a consumer for three years, yet reserving the right to fundamentally alter the costs borne by the consumer midway through the agreement. In other words, the contract may say one thing, but consumer rights and fairness dictate something else.