HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen)
Subject: Re: Bell wants my $$$ before my monthly bill came
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 18:27:26 GMT

Peter S. Lau <plau@qucis.queensu.ca> writes:
>I received a call yesterday from Bell Canada saying that since my new bill 
>is over a hundred dollar and since I am also a new customer, 
>I have to pay the next month bill in advance!
>
>I asked her what if I don't pay now and wait for the monthly bill? She
>told me if I don't pay in 24 hours, they will have to disconnect my
>phone service. Or else I could pay $350 for desposit [sic] get away from
>this trouble.
>
>What on the world do they really up to? Do they have a cash flow problem?  
>Could they really do that? Calling people up and ask to pay
>the monthly bill in advance? (Hell, I just got the regularly [sic] bill two
>days ago!) ... I don't think they have the right to do that. 

From the British Columbia Telephone Directory, page 17:
  * Interest on deposits
      B.C. Tel may require a deposit when an applicant has no credit history 
      with the company, and will not provide appropriate credit information, 
      or already has an unsatisfactory credit-rating with the Company due to 
      payment practices in the last two years regarding the Company's services. 
      Customers who are required by the Company to maintain deposits for credit 
      purposes will receive interest at current savings rates on such deposits. 
      Monthly accounts will show the total amount of deposits plus accrued 
      interest.  Such interest is paid monthly and upon refund of the deposit.
  * When you are billed for services
      The monthly charge for telephone service is billed in advance.  Long-
      distance calls and other charges are billed after you use the service.

To quote one of Lily Tomlin's characters (Ernestine, the telephone operator):
   We're the telephone company; we don't have to care.  :-)

If you haven't noticed, "current savings rates" at any Canadian bank
are in the 1% to 2% range, so don't expect a windfall on your interest.
(Will BC Tel issue a T-5 form for the interest? :-)
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
From: douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong)
Subject: One Canada. Invisible. 
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:43:44 GMT

The leader of the B.C. Liberal Party Gordon Wilson is against the
Charlottetown Accord for many reasons.  He recommends that a
clause be put in the Canada Clause that says Canada is one
country and indivisible.  This basically means that no province
can separate from Canada.  If this clause was in the Accord
how would Quebecers view this clause?  For Westerners it means
no more whining about separating.  This clause would nullify
Trudeaus's argument of blackmail.  But would Quebec voters
agree to this clause? 

Newsgroups: can.general
From: jfh@netcom.com (Jack Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Bell wants my $$$ before my monthly bill came
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 06:04:16 GMT

In article <PLAU.92Sep30080936@canopus.qucis.queensu.ca> plau@qucis.queensu.ca 
(Peter S. Lau) writes:
>
>What on the world do they really up to? Do they have a cash flow
>problem?  Could they really do that? Calling people up and ask to pay
>the monthly bill in advance?

Of course they can - in fact, they did.

>(Hell, I just got the regularly bill two
>days ago!) I lived in the States for 7 years and I had dealed with 2
>local phone companies and 3 long distance carriers, and I have never
>seen or heard of anything like that. 

It also happens in the US.  I know of someone who received a bill like that.
The amount was much larger, though, and it did make the papers. 

>I don't think they have the right to do that.

I don't know about your phone company, but Pacific Bell specifically says
(page A21 of the San Francisco white pages): "It is possible we may send
you more than one bill per month if, in less than a full billing period,
your Toll CHarges exceed the limit established for your service."  I doubt
if Canadian regulations are much different from US regulations, since they
were all written by the phone companies. 

>On what ground that they would need the money in a hurry?

Probably that the you don't have a credit record with them.  Remember, when
you hang up that phone, you already owe them the money.  They're advancing
you credit by letting you make calls without paying in advance. 


-- 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton   jfh@netcom.com   P. O. Box 281107   SF, CA   94128-1107
Newsgroups: can.general
From: ken@unixg.ubc.ca (Kenneth White)
Subject: Re: Bell wants my $$$ before my monthly bill came
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:43:07 GMT

actually, you can do much better than going to rogers/unitel.
resellers such as Camnet give you the same service at a bigger discount.
if unitel gives the same type of treatment as rogers cable does namely
price increases without warning and killing off of services without
warning then i would be wary of their promises.

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: brea9430@mach1.wlu.ca (breadner kenneth cecil joseph u)
Subject: I couldn't hold back any longer...
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:15:07 GMT

Our local paper just ran what I assume to be a condensed version of the text
of the Charlottetown agreement, for which I commend them. It's nice to know
what we are actually voting on.

But.

But:

--I am sure everyone in Canada knows this "referendum" is not a referendum
but a plebiscite. So being, it is non-binding, and, as several of you have
mentioned, the same result could have been independently attained at much
lower cost to the taxpayer by means of an informal survey. In point of fact,
this IS little more than an informal survey, excepting its scope. 

--Given the media's total refusal to see any politician's action as even
"potentially in the best interest of Canada", I find it extremely surprising
that nobody has come forward to denounce the "referendum" for what it is: a
straw vote. After all, the papers have gleefully reported the cost of these
proceedings (I apologise, the figure has slipped my mind), but I have yet to
see someone tell us what we are actually voting on, and what effect our vote
will have: none at all.

--I will indeed vote on Referendum Day, but only because I have contributed
to the cost of the campaign. Don't let anyone tell you any different: a Yes
vote and a No vote will have the identical non-existent effect. This is,
after all, only a plebiscite which for some ungodly propagandist reason is
being referred to as a "referendum".
------------------------------------

-- 
KEN BREADNER: student lunatic. Opinions expressed herein are mine, unless
they aren't, in which case, well, they aren't. Wilfrid Laurier University:
'abandon hope, all ye who enter here!' --Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 
"2+2=5, the future is behind us and the past is on its way. Please hold."
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:47:48 GMT

Robert Story (rstory@eci386.uucp) wrote:
: 
: While you can get a copy of the accord you *can't* get the final or
: legal version.  Ergo how do you know what you're voting for?  
: 

Do you really believe that the legal version will be different than the
summary? After all, in order to make any changes of intent, everybody would
have to agree again. I think that all the final copy will have that the
summary does not is clarification. There will be no 'surprises'.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: New Constitution text??
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:04:08 GMT

rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>  Can anyone (anyone but Gerald who is rapidly losing credibility) explain 
>how the current Accord grants any new executive powers that the current
>executive branches do not collectively already have?

Formally the executive power is not increased. However, the effect of
the new intergovernmental agreement clause will probably be to increase
the power of first ministers. Although legislative action is necessary
to ratify any such agreements under Charlottetown, the reality is that
legislative bodies cannot negotiate with each other: the negotiating
is done by the executive branch.

Mathew Englander.
Newsgroups: can.general
From: mikem@comspec.com (Mike Martinez)
Subject: Re: YALDSS (Yet Another Long Distance Savings Scheme)
Reply-To: mikem@comspec.com (Mike Martinez)
Organization: Comspec Communications - Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:32:25 GMT
Followup-To: ont.general
Summary: Not just in your neighbourhood
Keywords: Telephony phonies?
Disclaimer:  Comspec Communications knows nothing of what I write.

evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:

| A company called VisionTel has been doing a door-to-door blitz in my
| neighbourhood. They claim an across-the-board 30 per cent savings in
| North American long distance and 10 per cent on overseas.

Around here, it's a company called UniGlobe Telecom ("Long Distance For 
Less").  They claim (this is directly from the sheet) "SAVE up to 33%
or more" on calls within Canada and the U.S.  This service requires a
one-time "Activation Fee" of $24.95, after which there is a wait of
10-14 days.  The arrangement is then supposed to be that Bell charges
their customers for their basic service only, and UniGlobe charges for
long-distance calls.

| The plan is that you call a special Toronto number, and when it
| identifies you as a customer (using caller ID?) presents another dial
| tone for making outgoing LD calls.

Ditto here, except that they assign users a "7-digit P.I.N. for Remote 
Calling".  So, this service is apparently useable away from home.

| The company "and its affiliates" claim 400,000 subscribers and assets of
| $3 billion.

UniGlobe Telecom makes no claims of that sort.  But it wouldn't have
surprised me if it had.

I'm going to reserve judgement on whether this is a scam or not until
enough people either sing its praises or get burned in the process
before deciding whether it's worth it.
--
He who binds to himself a Joy                | M. Martinez - mikem@comspec.com
Doth the winged life destroy;                |---------------------------------
But he who kisses the Joy as it flies        | UUCP:  ...uunet!uunet.ca!
Lives in Eternity's sunrise.                 |            comspec!mikem
Newsgroups: can.general
From: donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed)
Subject: Re: New Constitution text??
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 14:35:26 GMT

alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney) writes:

>REALLY WHY SHOULD WE VOTE NO? IT'S LIKE SAYING NO TO MOTHERHOOD AND APPLE
>PIE. IT IS IN NO-ONE'S (ECONOMIC) INTEREST TO DIVIDE THE COUNTRY.

I see you are easily warmed over.  I am not voting to "divide the country".
I am voting to send my message of what I think of the contents of the
"Final Text" from the Charlottetown Agreement.  This is what the question
asks.  It does not say "do you disapprove of the country breaking into
two parts", nor does it say "are you glad that the U.N. thinks we
are the best place on the world to live?"  There is just too much 
talk about everything else but what we are being asked to approve/disapprove.
I can't believe it.  If the mechanic looking at your car tells
you that the estimate for repairs is $XXX(X) do you decide to
go ahead based on the condition of your vehicle and the known estimate,
or do you decide the weather is nice and you should say yes?

>Any questions about the legal text are superfluous. Even the printed copies of
>Acts of Canada are not the strict legal text. You have to go to Law libraries,
>and get the precedents, and the Regulations, etc. Do we examine those things?
>No. Certainly very few people have read all the important text on the BNA Act.
>There are less than 10 people in this country who are considered constitutional
>experts.

New constitutional items will not have a history.  Legal text is important if
you care whether it is the people or the Provincial Legislatures that
vote for the Senate seats.  The current "Final Text" says "either" and
gives us nothing to vote on in this referendum.  I did examine the
Meech Lake accord and was able to decide what I thought of it.  If there
are at least 2 constitutional experts in Nfld, there are likely more than
20 in the country - even more if we do it as Rep. by Pop.  Some of these people
get on the radio and appear on television and have interpretations
to offer the public.  This is what is realized when you live in a
society with a free press and a democratic inclination.  If this
were a binding referendum, we would be exercising this ability to
vote and to voice our concerns about what issues are at stake.
Unfortunately we are being inundated with remarkable non-issues and
we are existing in a democratic pulse that only wants to be given
feelings and wants people to be driven by fear and panic.
It was different in Greece.

--Donald Teed
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Followup-To: can.politics
	<1992Sep29.163050.8422@mdivax1.uucp>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:26:27 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep29.163050.8422@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

   >In article <1992Sep25.200415.1751@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
   >>Andrew M. Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.UUCP) wrote:
   >>>In article <wcLkRB1w165w@aqua.ocunix.on.ca> cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:
   >>>
   >>>>throws away democracy by guaranteeing a minimum number of seats in the house
   >>>>to a minority REGARDLESS of the population balance
   >>>
   >>>_this_ one I'm sick of:  yes, it's possible for Quebec to wind up with a
   >>>radically disproportionate number of seats, but in the grand scheme of
   >>>things it's not likely to happen.  There's no good reason for Quebec's
   >>>population to decline that sharply... so they wind up with 25% when they
   >>>really deserve 23%, does that minor inaccuracy really affect anything?
   >>
   >>If there's no good reason for Quebec's population to decline that sharply,
   >>then there is no good reason to put the floor provision in the
   >>Constitution. 
   >>Jim Robinson
   >
   >  There is no good reason to shove a pacifier in a child's mouth.
   >
   >  On the otherhand there is no good reason not too, and since the result is
   >usually a bit more peace and quiet for the rest of us, why not?

   I believe that many harried parents would say that there is a very good
   reason to shove a pacifier in a child's mouth; namely, to shut him up. I
   believe that they would also say that there are no long term dangers in
   taking this action.

   The floor provision, on the other hand, presents serious long term dangers.
   In 40 or 50 years it is quite possible that BC's population will equal
   Quebec's. 

In 40 or 50 years, we might also have a world government.  Or, the
polar icecaps might melt a bit, flooding the coasts and making the
plains of the Dene Province and Nunavut major wheat-growing areas.


--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Xref: sparky can.general:4719 can.politics:7782 ott.general:1170
From: yung@r-node.gts.org (Amos Yung)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 1 Oct 92 23:21:56 GMT
Organization: R-node Public Access UNIX Information System (416-249-5366)

In article <q74uRB1w165w@aqua.ocunix.on.ca> cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:
>wetmore@theochem.uwaterloo.ca (Ross W. Wetmore) writes:
>
>
>>   On the otherhand there is no good reason not too, and since the result is
>> usually a bit more peace and quiet for the rest of us, why not?
>
>That is the yes side motivation that I am afraid too many people have.
>Vote yes for imagined peace and quiet.   Sad that those people would see
>democracy eroded away in favour of "peace an quiet".
>
>

I tend to agree with Ross. Vote "yes" just to get the damn thing over with
and to get the much needed attention from our beloved politicians back to
the desparate economy.


>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amos Yung          | Macintosh Jr.: The power to crush the other kid.
yung@r-node.gts.org| 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed)
Subject: Re: how not to vote...
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 13:27:27 GMT


In article <1992Sep30.100646.19770@thinkage.on.ca> kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca (Ken Dykes) writes:
>federal, provinical and municipal elections all have slightly different
>rules/behaviors in regards to NON-VOTEs (no votes but not to be confused
>with voting no :-) and spoiled votes.
>
>in a federal referendum/plebianciting what will happen to spoiied and
>blank ballots?
>
>ignored?
>counted and published?
>spoiled is distinct from blank?
>or blank is equivalent to spoiled?

I have heard that this is how it works: a spoiled ballot is anything that
can't be counted as a clear yes or no according to the rules, for any reason
other than the reason that the ballot has been "refused".  This is
a separate tally, and indicates that you as a voter have a disagreement
with the proceedures or the system, as opposed to simply being dimwit
and screwing up your ballot for whatever reasons.  The procedure to follow
is to take your ballot and write on it "I hereby refuse my ballot."
and passing it on to the person who is employed to stuff it for you.
I have heard from anarchist types that there is some little known
procedure where if these numbers are a majority, the election is
a dud.  I can't vouch for the authenticity of this, and perhaps
we had better hear someone from the Law Society of Upper Canada
or elsewhere, who knows, back this up or refute it.  This was
originally said about federal elections, so again, there is some
uncertainty with how much of this applies to a referendum.


Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill)
Subject: Re: I couldn't hold back any longer...
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:27:26 GMT

brea9430@mach1.wlu.ca (breadner kenneth cecil joseph u) writes:

>Our local paper just ran what I assume to be a condensed version of the text
>of the Charlottetown agreement, for which I commend them. It's nice to know
>what we are actually voting on.

     Too bad your local paper didn't have the brains to print the full text.
It comes out to 4 full page sides only in the Vancouver Sun.  Then you'll 
really know what you are voting on.  Condensed versions always include the 
condensers biases.

>--I am sure everyone in Canada knows this "referendum" is not a referendum
>but a plebiscite. So being, it is non-binding, and, as several of you have
>mentioned, the same result could have been independently attained at much
>lower cost to the taxpayer by means of an informal survey. In point of fact,
>this IS little more than an informal survey, excepting its scope. 

     Infomral surveys are little better than doggie poop when it comes to 
guaging actual feelings.  I'm surprised that someone in university actually
has any confidence in them.  I much prefer an electorate where each person has
a say (not 2000 randomly chosen from cross-Canada).

     BTW, this is a referendum.  The vote is binding in BC anyway, and I would
love to see what happens to a provincial government that goes against the vote 
in their province.  Besides, Mulroney himself has said that as far as he was
concerned, a 50% pass in each province (separately) is what he is looking for.

>--I will indeed vote on Referendum Day, but only because I have contributed
>to the cost of the campaign. Don't let anyone tell you any different: a Yes
>vote and a No vote will have the identical non-existent effect. This is,
>after all, only a plebiscite which for some ungodly propagandist reason is
>being referred to as a "referendum".

     I will vote, because it is a full fledged referendum in BC, and I happen 
to feel that a `Yes' side supporting itself with hedged threats of the effects
of a `No' vote has no position to stand on at all.  I could write a better
deal than this one, even keeping all of the important aspects of it, and write
it so every citizen understands it -- rather than requiring dunderhead lawyers
for a translation.  Constitutions are for the people, not for lawyers and
politicians.

--
Arnold Gill --- astrophysician trainee in exile             gill@physics.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: can.general
From: gkirikos@epas.utoronto.ca (George Kirikos)
Subject: Re: Bell wants my $$$ before my monthly bill came
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:23:24 GMT

In article <PLAU.92Sep30080936@canopus.qucis.queensu.ca> plau@qucis.queensu.ca (Peter S. Lau) writes:
>I received a call yesterday from Bell Canada saying that since my new
>bill is over a hundred dollar and since I am also a new customer, I
>have to pay the next month bill in advance!

When I installed a second line into my house, they asked for a $100
deposit (since the billing for the first line was in another person's name).
>
>I asked her what if I don't pay now and wait for the monthly bill? She
>told me if I don't pay in 24 hours, they will have to disconnect my
>phone service. Or else I could pay $350 for desposit get away from
>this trouble.
>
>What on the world do they really up to? Do they have a cash flow
>problem?  Could they really do that? Calling people up and ask to pay
>the monthly bill in advance? (Hell, I just got the regularly bill two

Bell Canada will pay interest on any deposit, and will refund it after
a set period (in my case 6 months). However, they give an abysmal rate
of interest on deposits -- after 3 months, I've earned $0.30 (yes, 30
cents, that's just over 1% interest on an annual basis!). I think Bell
isn't satisfied with the $1 billion plus in profits it makes per year,
and is trying to reduce the age of its accounts receivable, as well as
trying to find cheap sources of capital.
>
>Well, I will definitely look into the package from Roger Communication
>next year and hell, I just use my U.S. Calling Card to make the calls
>from now on since Bell doesn't want my money anyway.
>
I'm sure that we'll all be looking at Unitel, even if we have to punch
in 17 (seventeen) extra digits to access their system.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| George Kirikos                   Internet: gkirikos@epas.utoronto.ca      |
| Toronto, Canada                 Telephone: (416) 537-1756                 |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+