Talk:Public Mobile

"There are many complaints about their phones" really needs a citation. I'm not usually comfortable deleting, but if that doesn't get backed up with a reference I think it's got to be edited out soon. Hughstimson (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This would require a more formal, professionally-done review of their phones. True, simply posting a comment like "the Buzz is cheap" does not quality as a reliable reference.  It would be great if a reputed blog like Mobile Syrup reviewed Public phones.  --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable references
There was previously a tag for the lack of reliable references, or sources, that were separate and did not belong to Public Mobile. As it stands, there are now references to Reuters, Mobile Syrup, Industry Canada's Spectrum Direct, and MetroPCS. The tag is now removed, but the article may need some more cleanup to become more neutral and to sound less like an advertisement. Right now, the lack of smartphones, high speed Internet and roaming in some provinces are some negative traits (cons) of Public described in the article. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite
I rewrote this article, though I wouldn't call it an exhaustive rewrite. I deleted the advertising "fluff" (including product and price lists), added a few more facts with refs, lengthened the opening paragraph and deleted the advert tag. If this suits my fellow Wikipedians, perhaps you can also remove this from "Category:All articles with a promotional tone" (I don't know how). This *should* now meet the NPOV standard. Cheers. HuntClubJoe (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * i disagree with most of these changes. Products and services should remain separate sections, although prices needn't be listed.  The Public Mobile Buzz is their flagship phone just like T-Mobile USA has a series of phones.  Roaming should remain a subsection of Services, again with optional pricing.  --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it wasn't an exhaustive rewrite; as such, I'm sure there are many things that could be added to the article, and perhaps some more that should be deleted. My main aim was to be rid of the commercial tone of the article, and in spite of other flaws, I believe I have done so.  Feel free to make whatever changes you see fit, and maybe we can come to a consensus.  Thanks for your prompt input!  HuntClubJoe (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

History
One/two sentence sub-sections of history bother me. I will bring it all together. Unless there is a better way to re-group it. Also, the table with only 3 number of subscribers has got to go, right? Truther2012 (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep historical Public Mobile details
i've reintroduced the Android devices that were exclusive to Public Mobile, since this is historically important to know the pros and cons of Public's early (pre-Telus) days. i've even made a video about those days, but my point is that this is key information. In my opinion, this matters much more that Public as a Telus MVNO. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an error in the pre-Telus days; they state something along the lines of the Blackberry Q5 being the only non-Android smartphone offered but this is untrue. They had other brands back in the day. I am pretty sure they had Bada and some of the other lesser known back then. Kav2001c (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)kav2001c

Advertising alert
Smells like Telus advertising marketing edit up. The Public Mobile self serve re brand is still in progress as beginning of March. How come all the information is already here with references?Starbwoy (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"Mentioning information on CB investigation"
The 11:09 16 February 2018 edit by user 41.208.72.204 is not accurate. The cited source declares a Competition Bureau "agreement" with Telus about settlement for misleading/deceptive marketing in 2015. A different issue, long dated, which never even involved Public Mobile.

Public Mobile did recently practice misleading/deceptive marketing. A promotional plan promised "no surprises" followed by a rate increase on the next billing cycle, along with a "limited offer" invitation to move onto a comparable plan with Koodo (at a cost lower than the new PM prices but higher than agreed at signup). A very unpopular move which angered many customers and lost others - PM quickly issued apologies, retracted their price increases, and offered one-time reward credits to affected customers.

This is still a very controversial topic at the Public Mobile community forum (which serves as the only point of contact or tech/service support with PM). There are petitions and letters urging PM users to file complaints with the CCTS (not the CB), there are claims about CCTS complaints on file reaching the thousands. There are letters of apology from PM urging users to remain. There are trolls and pundits galore.

I do agree this controversy should be mentioned on the PM wiki article. But it should be accurate and it should cite accurate sources. I couldn't find any sources - no information or feedback from the CCTS sites, nothing on the CB sites, no official statements from PM or from Telus - beyond what is still being discussed (quite vehemently) at the PM community forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.143.43 (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh wow... this comment came from a Telus owned IP address (https://www.whois.com/whois/154.5.143.43)... what a coincidence. 89.249.65.21 (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No coincidence, I'm a Telus customer, and a Public Mobile customer. I'm not seeking to attack or defend Telus or PM, just pointing out a fault on this article, it presents inaccurate information and it doesn't cite a relevant source. Not sure what your statement is implying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.143.43 (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)