Canadian mobe firm sued over disappearing husband

Uhh, no...

"I love the desperate attempts to deflect blame and admonish an innocent party for someone else's wrongdoing - Only In American[sic]"

Or, in a more accurate sense, CANADA.

Re:Hahahahahahahahahahahahaaa

@Christopher "Only In American"...?

First of the country your thinking of is called 'America', and secondly the company and woman are in Canada

RE: Hahahahahahahahahahahahaaa-

"Only In American."

Technically, that would be "only in America" (no "n") except that it isn't. The phone company is Canadian and the story is reported in a Canadian newspaper, so the woman (and her former husband) is more than likely Canadian. It's called "reading comprehension." You ought to try it sometime.

"Only in American?"

Ummm... "A disgruntled woman is suing CANADIAN telco Rogers Wireless for destroying her marriage." I mean at least insult the appropriate population! Damn Canuks are only holding our natural resources for us (Americans) until we use up everything within our traditional borders anyway.

Terminator because THEY (CANADIANS) know what's commin. Don't saw you weren't warned.

*giggles*

@HAHAHAHAHAHA (No Rogers Communication in the USA, only Canada)

Christopher,

Just for the record, Rogers Communication is only available in Canada, not the USA.

I just love it when you folks in Europe (how do you like them apples) lump everything that happens in North America under the banner of "Damned Yankees". On the other hand, perhaps El Reg could have included more detail in the article.

I learned a long time ago that you should get out of your current arrangements before you look for new prospects, though many people do make stupid mistakes in the heat of passion.

Looks like this gal reaped what she sowed and doesn't deserve much pity least of all from the Canadian justice system. She should have asked for the "No detailed billing" option if they offer it.

I suppose after her husband checked the phone bill he might have also checked her browser history but it sounds like he must have gone right to the source and heard the answer no spouse ever wants to hear. Can't blame him for leaving.

only in America?

Other than the fact this happened in Canada, that's an interesting observation.

Too bad continue...

You are right - the bundle practice is a breach of contract and very much more so privacy. What if you live in a rented house upstairs and tenants downstairs all sharing the same postal address, to Rogers you are all at the address they will bundle address! Rogers failed to acknowledge the fact that the names on the accounts are different and that should have stopped the process from starting based on privacy and the privacy laws of Canada.

@AC, "Silly"

From your first paragraph you seem to not understand the main technical issue in this case and the reason why the article is valuable and not just tabloid material.

Some telco providers bundle billing if they are linked to the same address. Specifically, it seems to be common with cable companies. In other words, for almost all practical purposes the account is in the name of the *address* not the person who opened the contract. So, what almost certainly happened in this case is that regardless of whose name was used for the primary services to that address, it would have been organisationally simple for the telco to add any other services linked to that address, which happened to include the woman's mobile contract and its billing. Whether this was intentional or not would be a very interesting question...

On a related note, Virgin Media do the same type of address bundling for billing. When I last enquired about additional landline telephone line services to our address (mid 2009), I was told that it was impossible for them to send separate bills for the services and it was impossible for them to have separate accounts at the same household. Obviously, I refused to take up the additional services with them (even though they were the cheapest offer) because there's no way I'd either want to manually go through a comprehensive bill and separate out the charges every month and, to be honest, I really really did not want to be financially linked (credit report etc) to another person.