Shaw Communications have found themselves in trouble once again. The company is being sued for $1.2 million by ZingoTel, a US VoIP provider.
The lawsuit was filed after ZingoTel was not aired a commercial by Shaw, a Canadian cable operator, since it advertised a competing VoIP provider.
An article published in the Calgary Herald claimed that ZingoTel agreed to pay Corus Entertainment, Shaw’s media buyer, $36,000 to broadcast the advertisement on one of their cable channels. “The ad was later vetoed by Shaw chief executive Jim Shaw, according to ZingoTel’s statement of claim. It alleges Corus was informed by e-mail that ‘Shaw will not accept any VoIP advertising business on cable.’” ZingoTel is also seeking retribution for damages from Corus.
ZingoTel has also filed a complaint with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
This happens to be the second complaint filed against Shaw to the CRTC. Vonage Canada has also made comments about the cable operator’s practice. Vonage is accusing Shaw of stealing their clients by charging hidden fees to Vonage VoIP users and removing this fee if they switch to Shaw. The hidden VoiP tax was labeled as a “quality of service enhancement” fee for all Vonage subscribers.
In its CRTC submission, Vonage Canada said: “Because Vonage competes directly with the telephone services of the network operators that also provide the high-speed Internet access, the incentives to discriminate against us are clear. This will result in less innovation, less choice and higher prices for Canadian consumers in the long run.”
“If the type of action represented by Shaw’s (enhancement) service is not seriously investigated and addressed by the Commission, there will be a heightened risk of a duopoly in local voice (phone) services that will unduly favor the phone and cable companies who provide the Internet access.”
“In the absence of credible, complete information, there is good reason to believe (Shaw’s) service offering is not an enhancement to Shaw’s high-speed Internet service but rather is an anti-competitive measure aimed at either increasing the perceived cost, or damaging the perceived reliability, of the services of independent Internet telephone service providers when compared to Shaw’s higher-priced phone service.”
Hi,
I thought this might be of interest to your readers. It is my opinion based on my experience with Zingotel they are frauduently saying they are offering services and charging for them when they do NOT have such services. Below is my experience with them.
I had signed up for a phone VOIP service originally on March 26 at which time it was indicated that there was 416 are code numbers available. I would have not signed up for this service if this was not the case. I have contacted by email the accounts department at least 15 times trying to find out when I would be getting a 416 number (I also filled out forms that were sent to me by your company to move my existing number over to your company).
I was told that the only thing that was available would be a 514 number which would be temporary for 5-10 days and after which time I could get a 416 number (even though it did state before I paid in good faith for your service that a 416 number was available right away).
After waiting over 10 days I was told there was still no 416 numbers available. I use my phone for business at home so I cannot expect my clients to be calling long distance to reach me. I then purposed, which I thought is reasonable, a reasonable solution to this matter. I requested a toll free number until I am able to get a 416 number. I was told that I would be charged extra for this as well as usage. I feel that this is unfair seeing I was promised a 416 number and paid $49.90US for this service. I was informed that this would not be offered free then also that my request for a 1800 number is rejected?
At this point I have wasted so much time and energy on this frustrating situation and I just began with your company, that I wish to have my payment of $49.90 refunded to my MasterCard. The company indicated on their site that 416 area code numbers were currently available before I signed up and paid and therefore I feel like I was fraudulently led to believe they had a service they do not. I also was patient with them when they promised my 416 area code number would be set up within 5-10 days but this again was untrue and did not happen. Therefore I have paid for a service which is useless to me and is NOT what I agreed to pay for.
I have requested a refund and to this date they have refuse to give me one or offer me the services I signed up for.
James Brandon