Talk:Bell Canada/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old headquarters shown

The main article photo shows the corner of the 700 de la Gauchetière building. Bell used to be headquartered there (the building was in fact called Bell Canada Tower). However, they've moved the headquarters to Nuns' Island location (Verdun borough of Montreal) about three years ago. The photo shows the old place (the anchor tenant is AON now) with the old logo.

John McArthur is Dead

I noticed the link to John McArthur points to a man that died in 1906. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.198.250 (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The current logo on this wiki page seems to have been altered from the original BCE logo. The edges of the blue lettering are more distinct and less 'curvy'

Big deal 76.69.167.90 (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Beavers

The beavers are incredibly good in their French speaking version. The francophone wikipedia has created a page celebrating them. Marc Venot 07:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The beavers now have an article called Frank and Gordon. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Takeover bids

BCE is currently up for sale, so it's a good time to watch the news for updates.

Phone rate increases in June, 2007

Although possibly of current interest to Canadian readers, I don't think this type of information is well suited for a company profile or history (unless it can be linked to a crucial moment in the overall financial health of the company). Although payphone increases have not occurred for a while, local phone rates have been increased a number of times (contrary to the text saying that it is the first time since 1981). I propose removing the paragraphs on these rate increases. Isaac Lin 22:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BellCanada1902.png

Image:BellCanada1902.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Green Party calls on Harper Government to halt BCE sale

This section is a summary of a press release from the Green Party. I believe it contravenes the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" policy. I propose removing this section. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and have reinserted the material. If you wish to propose a re-edit of the material I am willing to have a conversation here on that subject. It appears the OTPP deal may not be such a sure thing thus aspecalternative commentary should be part of the article IMO DSatYVR (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you disagree with? The section is a direct quote from a press release on the web site of the Green Party, describing its political views. Political advocacy is not permitted in Wikipedia articles by the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" policy. As also discussed in this policy, opinion pieces are not appropriate in a Wikipedia article. Isaac Lin (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of further discussion, I plan to remove this section as it contravenes the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" policy. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Catalyst Asset Management proposal

Given that virtually every action taken by publicly-held companies faces opposition from various investment groups, I'm not sure this section is particularly notable. I propose either deleting this section or dramatically reducing its length, as the details lack a neutral point of view (they originate from the web site of the investment group in question) and may contravene the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" policy. Isaac Lin (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and have reinserted the material. If you wish to propose a re-edit of the material I am willing to have a conversation here on that subject. It appears the OTPP deal may not be such a sure thing thus alternative deals should be part of the article. Several articles today in the financial press indicate the OTPP deal may not happen. IMO DSatYVR (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The discussion regarding the proposed takeover bid consists of opinion from a single company, some of it clearly from a non-neutral point of view, such as the sentence starting with "Unlike the takeover deal proposed by the OTPP, the Catalyst proposal poses no regulatory or timing risk..." The only facts are process-related ones, concerning who said what and when, and are overly detailed for a Wikipedia article of this nature. The opinions of a specific investment group are not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, as this contravenes the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" policy that disallows advocacy. Isaac Lin (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If there is no further discussion, I plan to delete this section in accordance with the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" policy. In addition, Wikipedia is not a place for news reports; a detailed accounting of events adds a disproportionate amount of information, relative to their importance. At this time, it is unknown if the specific objections raised in this section, which are unrelated to financing questions and the bondholders grievance, will ultimately play a role in BCE's corporate history, but there is no indication so far that they will. In time, should it become apparent that these objections are relevant, then the article can always be amended to include them. Isaac Lin (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Garbage

I believe there should be a section in this article about the stupid crap that is going on with Bell throttling P2P users. 76.69.167.90 (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thumbs up on that, buddy! 76.69.167.194 (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm from the other end of the world. Luckz (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There also are various known issues such as deloyal practices against ISPs who need to lease Bell lines and DSLAM services (as required by the CRTC), and those ISPs needing to fight in court often, eventually having to sell to larger providers. An example is IStop who was sold to Cia/Cybersurf/3web and then Cia sold to Distributel; and their DSL customers being throttled at half the speed they should be getting (1.5mbit instead of the 3mbit service they were paying for, in areas where Bell lines must be used etc), and getting more frequent downtimes with failure points at the DSLAM/concentrators/Bell-IP-Network. Also, those leased lines all being cancelled by Bell when IStop switched hands administratively, for their customers to experience extended downtimes and be coerced into switching to Sympatico or BellNexxia. Sources about this could be accumulated, but admitedly Wikipedia isn't a journalist platform for OR, so another "reputable" source should probably first assemble that information, if it hasn't already... But I was surprised that there was no "Criticism and deloyal competition" or similar section in the article when I read it. 216.239.66.56 (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Now part of Criticism of Bell Canada. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent?

This article describes the break up of the AT&T monopoly as occurring via the US Dept of Justice lawsuit in the 1940s/1950s whilst the US equivalent article refers to this as occuring in the 1980s. I have no other knowledge of the situation, but if someone could reference or correct this would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.155.116 (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"er"

I notice in all Bell advertisements the letters "er" are always in blue, bold face.

Does anyone know why this is? 72.141.242.238 (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's their advertising campaign. Everything has an "er" in it. 76.68.109.104 (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
But what's special about "er"? Obviously it's a teaser of some kind, I think OP was looking for the meaning. 64.229.221.161 (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Incoming Text Charges/Abusing market share

How come there is no mention of the Telus/Bell/Rogers agreement to charge 15 cents on all incoming text messages? this is pretty notable i think as it's an example of Bell abusing the fact that there really arent too many options for cellular phones in canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.42.232 (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Rogers does not charge incoming text messages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.198.250 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Because this is an article about the corporation "Bell Canada" and is not a comparison between Canadian private telecom corporations, nor is Wikipedia a soapbox to complain about cost of service. --Sartan (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton Telephone Comp. as precursor to Bell Telephone Comp. of Canada

In the History/Inception para. (just revised March 5th), there's now a very brief mention of Hugh Cossart Baker, Jr.'s involvement with The Hamilton Telephone Company after he received a license from Melville. The Baker article intriguingly states: '...this was the charter that enabled the creation of the Bell Telephone Company in Canada' .

If correct, this would merit significant mention directly in the article, as it appears that Hamilton Telephone was the legal precursor of The Bell Telephone Company of Canada. Does anyone have access to title or incorporation documents to verify the entry in the Hugh Cossart Baker article? I hate having to run over to the library to look for The Hamiltonians, which they prob. won't have anyways, and which might be fuzzy on the legal relationships. I imagine Bell Canada's legal department has copies of all these docs. Harry Zilber (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bell Canada → BCE (company) — Given that BCE now comprises two major operating units—Bell Canada and Bell Media—I propose that this article be renamed "BCE (company)", and that "Bell Canada" redirect to the renamed article. Given that BCE's history is mostly the history of Bell Canada, I also propose that the article remain substantially intact, covering Bell Canada and, once it came into existence, BCE in its role as a parent company to its various operating units, with detailed coverage of Bell Media and its components left within the Bell Media article. isaacl (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose It seems like a split is more appropriate. BCE has existed for a while, with phone Bell as a subsidiary. BCE used to own Nortel, which was separate from Bell Canada. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose As same opinion than "65.93.12.101". ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 14:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:Use common name. The company is commonly referred to as Bell, not BCE. Resolute 18:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Though I'm in agreement with the proposal to create a separate parent article for BCE (and would have proposed it if I had anticipated the support for this path), it's no longer true that BCE is commonly referred to as Bell, since BCE now comprises multiple business units. (This article was renamed from Bell Canada Enterprises when BCE was reduced to Bell Canada as its main operating unit, and currently comprises the whole history of BCE in its scope.) On a side note, assuming we proceed forward with creating a separate BCE article and this article is limited solely to Bell Canada, I wouldn't recommend renaming this article to "Bell (some disambiguation)", as "Bell Canada" is still a commonly-used and accurate term for the company. isaacl (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that "Bell Canada" is either the phone company or a disambiguation page with Bell Canada (phone company) being the company if this becomes a disambiguation page. I don't think BCE parent of Bell phone would be the most likely meaning.
Corporate history from its founding until it was reorganized into BCE and Bell should remain here. BCE should start with the reorganization of Bell to have a parent. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

split suggestion

I don't understand what is being proposed to be split out, or why the specific article title was suggested. I do believe a separate article on BCE may be beneficial, as discussed in the section above, but this is not specific to the section to which the split notice was added. I propose removing the template added in this edit. isaacl (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Aside: is there supposed to be a space between the section's title and your paragraph? --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The subsection is currently called "Convergence and consolidation, round two", but this is such a technical name that doesn't tell me much, reminds me of the non-successful C&C around the new millennium, and frankly the name doesn't give out all the details about Bell's drastic changes.
Naming the section "Today Just Got Better" makes more sense, because it's Bell's advertising campaign that is a concrete way to illustrate the telecom giant's enormous changes. The new Bell Slim logo is reminiscent of the one found two generations ago, but obviously doesn't have a "fat" typeface. It's a way to attract both new and old customers. And along with the logo, there's lot of changes:
  • Bell expands its retail presence by purchasing The Source. Bell Mobility, Virgin Mobile Canada and (to a much lesser extent) Solo Mobile are all showcased at the entrance of the store, to the point where some customers cannot enter the store without visiting that section. The Source has also been modernized, pulled out of its "geek niche" and there are TV/phone/Internet services available there as well.
  • Bell removed monikers like ExpressVu and Sympatico in its product names. Now the services are simply called "Bell TV" and "Bell Internet", respectively.
  • Bell discontinued the Bell Gardium (home security) products and services, although in the light of Rogers Communications' Smart Home Monitoring, which is likely powered by Alarmforce, i wouldn't be surprised to see Bell offer Bell Home Monitoring in the coming years.
  • Bell launched its Bell Fibe products (modem) and services, which claims improvements for the Internet service and also offered the Fibe 25 speed tier and Fibe TV service in select regions. i've yet to try the two latter, but the Fibe 6 Internet was more reliable after this launch, although i am no longer subscribe, and i don't know if it has anything to do with Fibe. But Bell Fibe TV will eliminate the need for satellite dishes by using the Internet pipe for television services.
  • Bell completely redesigned its non-Source retail stores, such as its Bell World stores. They are now simply known as a Bell Store, and they have a SPA (service/product assistance) to help customers. Kiss those card vending machines goodbye. The Solo Mobile section of the store is either merged to match the Bell branding, or in some cases, it is completely absent. As for Virgin Mobile Canada, they are now getting a few gorgeous retail stores instead of just kiosks. Speaking of which…
  • Bell purchased Virgin Mobile Canada and invested heavily into that brand, putting its once-popular Solo Mobile brand on the backburner. Virgin now competes against Fido and Koodo. Although Solo Mobile was later revived to mimic Chatr, Bell did not pour as much advertising effort as Rogers, refused to offer unlimited prepaid plans for HSPA+ devices, and so Solo Mobile is now nearly abandoned. Virgin launched the iPhone and over half a dozen of Android devices, while Solo did not carry Apple's device and only recently began selling the Samsung Galaxy Gio as its only Android. Long story short, they bought Virgin and left Solo behind.
  • Bell launched its HSPA+ network and no longer carries legacy CDMA smartphones except for the Solo BlackBerry Pearl 8130. Similarly and strangely, Virgin has a CDMA mobile broadband modem. Feature phones? Sure, they have a handful of CDMA feature phones, but Internet access and speed doesn't matter nearly as much for these types of devices. With Evolved High Speed Packet Access, it is possible for over 300K customers to enjoy Bell Mobile TV at a modest, pay-per-hour monthly fee. Of course, non-Bell video websites cost more. So while HSPA+ will make progress, CDMA will be given less priority. Plus, Bell has launched LTE in the GTA.
  • Bell abandoned Frank and Gordon in favour of advertisements involving humans revolving around the big blue Bell Logo. Oh, and that yellow colour and the curved shape it drew? That's gotta go. Of course, reaction was mixed for the beaver's departure. But that's what they did, and they managed to properly "fire" them.
And i could probably go on, with pay phones and whatnot. But these new changes and additions are enough to justify a completely separate article, known as "Today Just Got Better." It's not just about the branding, but it's also about what this new branding represents. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
For some reason, i forgot to mention Bell's re-acquisition of CTV. It is now known as Bell Media. This certainly helped them create their Bell Mobile TV and Bell Fibe TV services. It also unfortunately meant the death of A Channel and its rebranding as the filler station CTV Two. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. If the slogan made sense outside of an advertising context, it might be apt for a section title, but in this case it does not. It would give far too much undue emphasis on the latest phase of Bell's operations to split out this information into a separate article. isaacl (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The slogan does represent the advertising campaign, but that's not all there is to it. What does this new campaign mean? How did the company change? The slogan is simply a way for people to quickly identify a significant period of time in history for Bell Canada. Have you noticed the multiple changes for Bell? There's also negative changes such as UBB, AVP and lack of Net Neutrality with services like Bell Mobile TV. Furthermore, the acquisition of Virgin Mobile Canada and the phasing out of Solo Mobile significantly reduces competition in the wireless industry, especially for non-urban zones.
i'd actually be in favour of a "History of Bell Canada" article, but again, it's still possible that "Today Just Got Better" would illustrate so many positive and negative changes for the company. To describe them all would take too much room for the Bell Canada article alone. The current stub actually lacks detail and would need to include the changes listed above, plus, to balance it out, some negative aspects that i've now pointed out. It just seems that people need to be aware that the telecom giant is getting bigger, that it is buying many companies to grow and to dominate more Canadians' lives. Of course, enough people do not consider this to be "better" and they dislike the lack of competition. In any case, i'd like to hear what everyone thinks about the "Today Just Got Better" title for an article, the suggestion to split the History section, and if anyone has alternate titles to accurately describe the ad campaign and Bell changes. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

name in infobox

As touched upon in the discussion above, Talk:Bell Canada/Archives/2013#Proposal for rename, this article's primary subject is Bell Canada. After deregulation, Bell Canada split into a parent conglomerate (BCE), and a number of other subsidiaries. Most of the history in this article covers the history of Bell Canada (the line gets a bit blurred during the period when Bell was BCE's only main division), and so I propose that the company name in the infobox should remain Bell Canada. (BCE should get its own article, as discussed above, particularly since with the creation of Bell Media, it is more than just Bell Canada.) isaacl (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

At the moment the contents of the article clearly relate to both Bell Canada and BCE. I support the creation of an article for BCE, at which point detail found in this article which applies to BCE (such as the financial information given in the infobox) should be removed. Until that time this article should be clear about its contents.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Objection to the decision to remove the criticism page for this company

Bell Canada had a separate page delegated to discussing controversy surrounding this highly controversial company:

Criticism_of_Bell_Canada

This page was most inappropriately deleted. The primary grounds for removal is that Wikipedia promotes neutral discussion and a page oriented around criticizing an organization or establishment is warranted to be biased. However, existing precedent on Wikipedia suggests that this justification for the removal of the Criticism of Bell Canada page is unjust.

Deleting a large criticism page and then failing to properly cite those genuine criticisms in the original article is more biased than deleting the criticism article on grounds of biased content itself.

Many Organizations have criticism pages

The justification for this criticism page to be removed on grounds that pages specifically delegated to criticism are not permitted has no basis. Each of these groups has a respective criticism page:

Criticism_of_Google Criticism_of_Microsoft Criticism_of_Walmart

Bell Canada is an immense organization and is within the same playing field as these companies (with revenue of 40%, making Bell Canada one of the largest corporations in Canada as well as in the world). The decision to remove the Criticism of Bell Canada page is thus unprecedented.

The Current Bell Canada wiki entry is BIASED. The Criticism page was sloppily removed, rendering the original Bell_Canada page with absolutely no content in the criticism section at all

The user who removed the criticism article did so in a completely unethical and unorganized manner, resulting in causing the actual article for Bell_Canada to present a bias, which is what they were allegedly attempting to avoid doing in the first place by removing the page. Paralleled to the likes of Google, Microsoft and Walmart, Bell Canada has undergone many controversial behaviours particularly within the past decade. Such behaviours include:

Conclusion

It doesn't take an experienced Wikipedia contributor to figure out that some of the things Bell has done in the past have been largely controversial. There are two binding factors which caused this page to be deleted. 1) Criticism pages are not neutral. Yet it is perfectly acceptable for those 3 large American companies to have criticism pages. 2) the content in itself as presented on the page was opinionated. If you feel this is the case then perhaps you should forward this objection onwards to a Canadian moderator who is able to validate the fact that the criticisms I stated above were widespread and controversial amongst the Canadian people. 3) Even if it is determined that the page shall remain deleted, the moderator who deleted it did a very sloppy job, and created a bias because now it appears that there are no criticisms of Bell Canada.

If Wikipedia is to be neutral then it cannot fail to recognize the Canadian peoples' problems with this company. The removal of this page sparked quite a lot of discussion and anger here:

http://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/1rzx3o/bell_criticism_page_deleted_from_wikipedia/

Sloppy sloppy work here. I, along with many fellow Canadians, are completely disgusted that in one swift manoeuvre a moderator transformed a large controversial corporation into an establishment that smells like roses. Even if you only believe 1/7 of the controversial behaviour I cited above is genuine then Wikipedia has still served an act of injustice towards its users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macmee (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Amen! --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Side note: For the sake of disclosure, i started volunteering at TV Rogers this summer. Naturally, this is long after Criticism of Bell Canada was deleted, let alone created. i would equally support a Criticism of Rogers Communications article, though i am somewhat limited to speak on that. Another suggestion would be a Criticism of Canadian telecoms or the like. Despite my involvement with Rogers, i do not let this conflict my edits on Wikipedia. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bell_Canada/Archives/2013&oldid=1043892719"