I ask here and now for feed-back

I ask here and now for feed-back.
Has now been 6 weeks since I asked to a establish a TOLL RESTRICTED but OPERATOR accessable basic phone service for a highly respectable retired man with disabilities and medical conditions. He lives isolated.

The intent was to provide a means to be able to call for help and to keep contected with friends. This individual used to have a cell, but because of a dispute over who was to pay for some phantom calls, he stoped payment and of course Citytel cut his service.

I had offered to pay the install and the first month of service, with the subsiqent payments to be taken on by this gentleman. I explained over and over again that he is totally discusted with the disagreement and the arbitrary way it has been handle.

I tried again and again to explain, if good faith were to be shown by providing the required service, which is not at all trivial, that he would also back off and become more reasonable. This would promt him and it is something I am encouraging, for him to come into the office and receive a decent reconsideration. No big deal if CityTel ends up knocking
some dollars off the bill but the important aspect would be that some kind of arrangement could be fleshed out to pay off the outstanding over a periode of time. A consideration will have been given as this man is on a fixed marginal income.

I informed them that I am prepared to take this to Human Rights Tribunal and the result will be that CityTel will lose. Plus they most likely will receive a monitary order of restitution against them. I had to do this with Telus 10 years ago and I won hands down.

The last responce was 3 weeks ago, in person. Their solution, stands at that the outstanding has to be payed first, plus something on deposit before any service will be given.

It is no small wonder that CityTel has quite a list of outstanding accounts receivable and they won’t see a dime from any.

No one has made an effort to contact me since. Period!

All along I have informed them that have no reservations on taking this situation to a third party.
Should I proceed and set a precidence through the Human Rights? Advocate on behave of this individual who as an after-thought, is also a proud veteran who served his country so that we have freedom from terriany.

I don’t know anything about the case, but why the Human Rights Tribunal?

Have his human rights being infringed? Phone service isn’t a human right. Unless they are denying him phone service based on his race or religion or something like that. Seems to me they are denying him phone service based on their evaluation of his past performance and credit risk, and his attitude :wink: I’d doubt the Human Rights Tribunal would even look at the case.

Perhaps you’d do better by approaching the CRTC:

crtc.gc.ca/eng/INFO_SHT/T12.htm

Or perhaps try small claims court. You’d be surprised what a judge will award in a small claims action. Corporations (Citytel is a corporation now!) don’t like it, because it means having to hire a lawyer, and might cost more just to fight it.

Either way, I’ll bet that you’ll find that Citytel isn’t doing this out of maliciousness. ie: CItytel isn’t the one that is wrong in this case.

I doubt they’d get far in small claims court. Boil the story down to the raw facts: This man chose not to pay a bill and had his phone service cut off. Now they are telling him he has to pay the bill in full before future service will be authorized. I don’t see anything about those facts that a judge would have any authority to do anything about.

Also… as a rule, when you are trying to get a business to provide you with a service? Threatening them with legal action and human rights lawsuits generally isn’t something thats going to make them want to co-operate with you.

Mike

anonymouse wrote:

[quote] No big deal if CityTel ends up knocking
some dollars off the bill but the important aspect would be that some kind of arrangement could be fleshed out to pay off the outstanding over a periode of time. A consideration will have been given as this man is on a fixed marginal income.[/quote]

If this is true, no matter whether this man has a reasonable argument in regards to his debt or not, I think that considering the circumstances with his health that he be given an opportunity to pay off the debt in payments while receiving the basic service in which he has asked for. Telephone service although seen as a luxury has become a very important and much needed service in todays society. If this man, who if I am not mistaken has health issues and being retired must be on in years, has a medical emergency or fire how can he get help??

Has our society become so de-sensitized and greedy that such an arrangement cannot be made??

The other thing that bothers me is that this is not Telus or Rogers that is doing this. This is CityTel owned by us citizens and operated by our neighbours. This is not a multi-national corporation with a head office in Beijing. CityTel just borrowed $23 million to buy Monarch Cable. I think that they could afford to take on the “risk” with this individual. A luxury that we do have living here is that personal and relationships issues can still mean something.

Whether or not this man had a legitimate complaint in regards to his bill or not, I fully support him in his fight for telephone service. Best of Luck

Does CityTel charge extra for a toll restricted line? Telus does. I used to have to pay $68 a month for a toll restricted private line in the Fort.

[quote=“fingahz”]anonymouse wrote:

[quote] No big deal if CityTel ends up knocking
some dollars off the bill but the important aspect would be that some kind of arrangement could be fleshed out to pay off the outstanding over a periode of time. A consideration will have been given as this man is on a fixed marginal income.[/quote]

If this is true, no matter whether this man has a reasonable argument in regards to his debt or not, I think that considering the circumstances with his health that he be given an opportunity to pay off the debt in payments while receiving the basic service in which he has asked for. Telephone service although seen as a luxury has become a very important and much needed service in todays society. If this man, who if I am not mistaken has health issues and being retired must be on in years, has a medical emergency or fire how can he get help??

Has our society become so de-sensitized and greedy that such an arrangement cannot be made?? [/quote]

I think this is a clear case where Orcam’s Razor can help us. Orcam’s Razor is a rule that states that if two or more competing theories adequately explain the same phenomenon, choose the simpler.

In this case, there is a much simpler explanation here: CityTel never tried to reason with this man because this man never tried to reason with them. Offense makes people play defense.

Had he come to them in a less belligerent and combative manner, and had just said “look, I’ve got a problem with my bill and I can’t pay it off all at once. Can’t we work something out?” I’m sure CityTel would have tried to do something.

[quote]The other thing that bothers me is that this is not Telus or Rogers that is doing this. This is CityTel owned by us citizens and operated by our neighbours. This is not a multi-national corporation with a head office in Beijing. CityTel just borrowed $23 million to buy Monarch Cable. I think that they could afford to take on the “risk” with this individual. A luxury that we do have living here is that personal and relationships issues can still mean something.

Whether or not this man had a legitimate complaint in regards to his bill or not, I fully support him in his fight for telephone service. Best of Luck[/quote]

Well, now let’s not get carried away here. CityTel is still a business. True, its sole purpose is not to make profit, but it still has to bring in money. And if they allow people to retain their services despite a record of not paying for them in the past, they’ll lose money. That means we’ll all be forced to pay higher rates to compensate for those who aren’t paying their bills properly.

I have very little sympathy for people who think they can get what they want by immediately picking a fight over it. In a civilized society, when you have a dispute, you try to be reasonable and work it out. You don’t go starting a fight. If you owned a business, would you be willing to help someone whom you had no obligation to help if they came to your shop and started arguing with you right off the bat, and they weren’t willing to find any middle ground? I certainly wouldn’t. In fact, I’d tell that person to leave.

Is Orcam’s razor like a Gillette Mach 3 version of Occam’s razor?

:wink:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_Razor

I totally agree with you, though.

I still don’t get why the Human Rights Tribunal was mentioned.

Also, Anonymouse, if you feel so strongly about it, why don’t you pay his debt? Or why don’t you get him a phone in your name? Then he could just pay you and you could pay the bill? Or are you worried he wouldn’t pay you?

[quote=“MiG”]Is Orcam’s razor like a Gillette Mach 3 version of Occam’s razor?

:wink:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_Razor

I totally agree with you, though.

I still don’t get why the Human Rights Tribunal was mentioned.

Also, Anonymouse, if you feel so strongly about it, why don’t you pay his debt? Or why don’t you get him a phone in your name? Then he could just pay you and you could pay the bill? Or are you worried he wouldn’t pay you?[/quote]

No, it’s the Phillishave version! Comes complete with a beard and mustache trimmer, and it also makes great coleslaw! :smile:

As opposed to Eleanor’s (my ex) Razor in which if you are faced with multiple solutions, the one that complied with the most of Her Conditions was the one that must be chosen to avoid Her Wrath.
Fortunately there were only three conditions:

  1. It must be the most complicated solution
  2. It must be the most expensive solution
  3. It must inconvenience the largest number of people
    One had to choose the solution applying to a point value of (1)(2)(3) where a total of 4 was a minimum to avoid eating home-made soup for a week, and whereas only two conditions HAD to be met, not meeting all three conditions entailed serving some gawdawful Scottish concoction to your Sunday dinner guests that made them fart to the point of utter humiliation.

I did a google image search for “Orcam” and this is what came up. Maybe it’s his razor. He looks like he gets a close shave.

http://www.lukor.com/literatura/05033007.htm

Mike

fingahz wrote:

Stardog Champion wrote:

I understand that that CityTel is a business. My comments were made based on this quote:

anonymouse wrote:

[quote]No big deal if CityTel ends up knocking
some dollars off the bill but the important aspect would be that some kind of arrangement could be fleshed out to pay off the outstanding over a periode of time. A consideration will have been given as this man is on a fixed marginal income.[/quote]

It appears that he is actually trying to make an attempt to pay of the debt in payments although he still disagrees with the charges to his account. If he is on a fixed income/ pension and has disabilities and is still trying to agree to pay off a debt that may or may not be a billing error then kudos to him. That would make the following quote in accurate:

Stardog Champion wrote:

It would seem to me that he is trying to reason with them.

Stardog Champion wrote:

Actually CityTel is not a non-profit organization. It is expected to make a profit and as a business that would be it’s purpose.

Now where does one draw the line between being a tough profit driven company to being a compassionate public relations oriented company while still being motivated to bring in a profit? I do beleive that there is a middle ground that a business such as CityTel can find and I think that it would have little or no effect on profit. It actually may increase revenues.

There’s just one problem: Anonymouse said right at the beginning:

This leads me to believe that, while Anonymouse may be trying to be reasonable, the man he’s helping may not have been. If he was trying to be reasonable and settle a debt, he should not have stopped making payments. Conversely, if he truly was the vicitm of “phantom calls,” but he has no way to prove it, he can’t reasonably expect CityTel to simply forgive his debt. I’m sure they hear that kind of claim every day, and without proof they shouldn’t have to take such a loss.

As for it being good business sense to find middle ground, I do agree with you. That said, I doubt any business would be willing to reach a compromise if someone came and threatened them with action in front of a human rights tribunal.

Besides, as with any kind of dispute like this, it is very rare to see the whole picture. People tend to embellish the facts that make their case look good while at the same time conveniently forgetting to mention facts that work against them. Without being able to hear CityTel’s side of this story, I have a tough time taking what Anonymouse said at face value.

Oh and by the way, I do realize that CityTel is expected to make a profit. I was simply pointing out that profit is not its sole purpose, and that a bigger priority is to provide an affordable, high-quality service to the residents of the city.

Stardog Champion wrote:

Finally we agree on something.

[quote=“fingahz”]Stardog Champion wrote:

Finally we agree on something.[/quote]

Believe it or not, I’m sure you’d find that if we met face to face, we’d agree on a lot! :smiley:

We always do Blaine. :smile:

Okay, now I’m at a loss. You know who I am, but I don’t know who you are. What’s your real name? PM me if you don’t wanna reveal it in public.

I me thinks you should read again what I posted. You missconscrewed on key pionts.
What I came forward with was a clear win/win sinerio for both parties and only at the end of it when I realized they lacked full comprehension of the win/win did I give information as to what will legaly fly in this case and others.
Presidence has been set before but in an outside location and these locals are ignorant of such. It was not a threat but a statement of what will actually happen if I go forward with this.
Before you give supposition, you need to know the facts and how they apply to common law.
Lack of service but denial of service that can be payed for in this case, will be deemed injurous and discriminates with inapropriate cause.

Lets start this tread, anew. Shall we?

Like I posted before, BCTel not Telus ( I goofed) was the same with me, and I simply faxed a letter of information of what was legal. This resulted in an immediate connection with a worked out agreement of the outstanding account which is now long ago payed off. Bonus, I have a good credit standing.

Anonymouse, your claims are decidedly dubious - unless you happen to have pictures of CityTel manager Bruce Kerr in compromising positions. Telephone service is not a right and, if we could withhold payment and then use age or disability as an excuse or reason for reconnection (thus giving the phone company zero leverage in getting paid), Citytel would be broke.

You claim to have used actual law to have gotten a favorable decision in a past, similar situation; I doubt that any such magical law exists. The best advice you can give this guy is to tell him to start saving up so he can pay his past dues.

ok, I’m really sorry for this, but your use of the word “ignorant” was just too much to pass up.

“missconscrewed”

“sinerio”

“legaly”

“Presidence”

“inapropriate cause”

How about you do what Crazy Mike suggested and boil down the case to a few key, undisputed facts:

  1. The guy ran up a Citytel bill.
  2. The guy didn’t pay the bill.
  3. Citytel cut him off.
  4. Citytel won’t give him service until he pays his bill.

That’s the case in a nutshell, right?

Again, tell us what is being discriminated? What does the human rights tribunal have to do with it? Which of those points have to do with his religion, his race, his sexual preference, his gender, etc?

In every single case that I’ve had a billing dispute with Citytel and Telus (ie: 3rd-party charge to my bill), they’ve fixed it. Instantly. And I’m a minority (and so was the woman who helped me). So please don’t say this is a race thing.

So, two questions for you:

  1. How is this guy being discriminated against?

  2. Why don’t you get the phone in your name and have him pay you, and you pay the bill?

** anonymouse wrote:**

You asked for it and got it. It may not be exactly what you had hoped for but it is feedback nonetheless. I honestly agree with some of your points as you may have noticed in my previous posts but I also agree with many of the other points made. What it boils down to is whether you or your friend like it or not, CityTel does not have to give service especially with a bad credit history. You don’t have to like it, your friend doesn’t have to like it. The fact is though that they control the situation and if you want phone service for your friend you will have to play their game.