1. 

   Since signing up I’ve received MORE not less telemarket calls.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   Posted by joe | October 13, 2009, 11:59 am
   Reply to this comment
2. 

   It is actually important that you say “please place me on your “Distinct Do Not Call List”, per subsection 41.7(4) of the Telecommunications Act. That immediately and permanently removes any exemption.

   You can find the legislation here:
   http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/T-3.4/bo-ga:l_II::bo-ga:l_III/20091006/en?page=2&isPrinting=false#codese:41_7-ss:_4_

   And you can find a recording of the CRTC suppressing evidence that the list would be abused by foreign telemarketers here:
   http://home.cogeco.ca/~publicnotice/DownloadEvidenceofCoverup.html

   Of course, the CRTC broke many laws in creating the DNCL – not the least of which being the hate crime committed against Canadians when the CRTC referred to us as terrorists – see lines 2529 (MR. DESBRISAY provides his definition of “tele-terrorist”), 2684 (MR. DESBRISAY), 2716 (MR. DESBRISAY), 2779 (MR. MILLINGTON), 2800 (MR. DESBRISAY), 2801 (MS. DEWAL) 2737 (COMMISSIONER LANGFORD) http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/transcripts/2006/tt0503.htm

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   Posted by Public Notice | October 13, 2009, 12:57 pm
   Reply to this comment
3. 

   Loophole: an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded

   Allowing companies to phone current or former customers is NOT a loophole as it is an intended function. It is an attempt to balance the need for companies to communicate with their customers against cusotmers’ desire to be left alone.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   Posted by TNSF | October 13, 2009, 4:56 pm
   Reply to this comment
   • 

     Re: TNSF’s comment: “It is an attempt to balance the need for companies to communicate with their customers against cusotmers’(sic)desire to be left alone.”

     These aren’t customers you’re talking about, they’re ex-cutomers. There’s nothing to balance. These unethical companies are invading people’s privacy. I no longer bother to say “please don’t call me again”. I use call display to screen the calls (it’s always clear when it’s a telemarketer calling), and on the rare occasion that I slip up I simply hang up immediately without saying anything.

     Like or Dislike: 0  0

     Posted by leapfrog | October 22, 2009, 12:18 pm
   • 

     Even customers who terminate service are often well served by being contacted. Sometimes customers have made a switch that they regret. Sometimes a win-back offer can be very tempting. If you aren’t wowed by your new provider and your old provider wants to offer a 50% discount wouldn’t you want to know that?

     If you don’t want anyone to phone you then don’t get a telephone.

     Like or Dislike: 0  0

     Posted by TNSF | October 23, 2009, 11:17 pm
4. 

   BEFORE THE CANADIAN RADIO TELEVISION
   AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   BETWEEN:

   McTavish LOGISTICS LTD., YYZ MOVING LTD.
   and BEST PICE MOVERS LTD.

   ________________________________________________________________________
   REVIEW & VARY APPLICATION

   Submitted by the applicants in person

   The thrust of my initial application was the issue of the minimal impairment provisions of the charter which was not addressed at all in the CRTC’s decision.

   It should be noted that the applicant posed a number of questions to the CRTC that were never answered and asked to have time to respond to the allegations. The CRTC did not answer any of the questions nor did the CRTC advise that they were not going to answer the questions, nor did they provide the applicant any notice of such nor did they give the applicant time to respond to the allegations. This was clearly a breach of natural justice.

   1. The concept of minimal impairment which is trite law is such that you can only impair someone in a minimal way from expressing themselves. The do not call list imposes a fee of $26,000 a year. This is not a minimal impairment!

   In contrast, in the U.S it should be noted that the government runs their own do not call list. It imposed a total cost for the country of $17,000.00 however gave the first 5 area codes free! Moreover, all of the profits that are made are used by the agency. It should also be noted that the U.S. has ten times our population and the cost of providing the service in the U.S. is somewhat greater than in Canada. It should also be noted that freedom of expression in Canada includes commercial freedom of expression, whereas in the United States, commercial free speech is given a lesser weight than other expressions of speech.

   2. In considering the issue of minimal impairment, the authority in Forget
   (Re Forget (1990), 74 D.L.R. (4th) 547 Alta. Q.B.) Madam Justice McFayden concluded in a By-law decision that you could only impair someone in a minimal way and at a minimal cost. Any semblance of that is missing in the current regulation. The applicant is not impaired in a minimal way.

   3. The granting of the contract to Bell is suspect especially the way in which the tender was made. It almost appears in that every other company in Canada was excluded by the criteria that were posted. The do not call list is a simple business process function costing around $20,000.00 to develop. Bell Canada has collected probably millions of dollars already from this relatively simple application.

   4. In summary, McTavish Logistics Ltd. and the associated companies do not possess the requisite funds to pay Bell Canada these exhorbinent fees and it is unconstitutional to force a company to pay fees to a profit making company under threat of sanctions.

   RELIEF SOUGHT

   1. A declaration that the minimal impairment provisions of the charter has been infringed.
   2. A public inquiry into the granting of this contract to Bell Canada.

   All of which is respectfully submitted

   COPY OF QUESTIONS THAT WERE POSED TO THE CRTC IN OUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION

   1. Is the imposition and mandatory compliance of the Do not call list legal & does it comply with the Canadian charter of rights & freedoms as set out in section 2b of the charter and does it comply with the minimal impairment regime set out in Irwin Toy and other constructional cases which are set out in my book of authorities?
   2. Does the mandatory compliance of the do not call list violate section 2b of the charter having regard to the fact that the Supreme court of Canada has ruled in Ford vs Quebec that freedom of expression includes commercial freedom of expression?
   3. Is the mandatory compliance of the do not call list a regressive form of taxation on the poorest and most vulnerable telemarketers in Canada? (It should be noted that a telemarketer pays the same fee whether he has one employee or ten thousand employees.) How can that be equitable?
   4. Did the CRTC through in advertence, willful negligence, sheer stupidity, or at worst engage in a conspiracy to defraud Canadians generally (and steer millions of dollars to Bell Canada by enabling Bell Canada to collect millions of dollars or for that matter, hundreds of millions of dollars) for developing a simple business process application that could be developed by literally thousands of Canadian companies for a fee in the range of $20,000.00 – $30,000.00?
   5. Did the CRTC violate reasonable and fair competition to Canadian companies by making the barrier to entry to bid on the provision of the do not call list (ie. $15,000,000.00 in cash) violate the competition act especially given the fact that no other company other than Bell Canada applied for the tender?
   6. Was the granting by the CRTC of a license to Bell Canada by all known estimates one of the largest, (if not the largest) telemarketer in Canada a conflict of interest and puts Bell Canada in the unenviable position of dominance by not only collecting millions or hundreds of millions in fees from in many cases, struggling telemarketers but denotes the aura of supremacy to companies in general that it is the custodian and the de facto almost governmental agency to sell all kinds of software and PBX equipment to companies that do not posses the requisite skill or expertise in performing what is in essence a simple merge/purge function.
   7. Does the CRTC have the right to give a license to a private for profit company to collect fees at their discretion under threat of sanctions to the Canadian Telemarketing industry, or for that matter, does Bell Canada have the right to demand companies pay them what is in essence a license fee under threat of penalty and make millions of dollars in the process?
   8. Does the telemarketer have the right to natural justice which would include the right to cross exam under oath viva voce the complainants set out in the CRTC’S’ submission giving rise to the application before the tribunal? ( I note that the majority of the affidavits are identical and in many cases the same person took the jurat from many of the complainants)
   9. Does the telemarketer have the right to cross examine Bell Canada and if so what is the procedure to do that?
   10. Would it be fair and reasonable for the telemarketer to demand a public inquiry in this matter?
   11. Are Canadian telemarketers entitled to a refund from Bell from the outrageous profits they generated under your authority?

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   Posted by Ilya Nikitine | October 26, 2009, 2:03 pm
   Reply to this comment

Post a comment