Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:18/12/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I am writing to formally address and raise concerns about my internet service experience in **************, B.C. The internet service in this area is monopolized, which relies on "local ***s" to manage and offer services. However, there is no local *** based in *****, forcing residents to use a provider located in ****** at the time of signup they we're unable to offer service / install. This has led to significant challenges, including the inability of the *** to perform on-site services. As a result, I had to conduct a self-installation, which, while manageable, highlighted a broader issue: the companys service model is entirely "self-serve," leaving customers to navigate complex issues without adequate support for resold service.The advertised rates for this service are 2-4 times higher than competitive rates offered by companies such as *****, **********************. Such costs might be justifiable for premium service, the infrastructure and support provided by the *** are outdated and inadequate. The *** lacks the capacity to provide timely assistance in Trail, often requiring months for on-site visits or suggesting expensive upgrades to the building's networking infrastructure before offering ********** a small family, we find these rates unsustainable. Despite our concerns, we have consistently paid the bills as presented to us. However, I recently discovered a document purportedly showing my digital agreement to these charges. This document was never sent to me, and I strongly contest its validity. It appears to be forged signature created without my consent. At no point was I provided clear information regarding the pricing or terms of service. Over the period from September 1, 2021, to September 1, 2024, we have paid over $7,448 for this internet service, compared to just $4,200 for much faster service previously provided by **** (now owned by ******) or *****.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 03/01/2025

  We do have a fiber plan with a price starting at $75/month, at a lower speed tier (250 mb/s).  ****** elected to sign up for the fastest speed plan at a higher price (1000 mb/s for $175).  He was presented with all available plans and chose the fastest plan.  I've attached the sign up form that he completed in 2021.

  We offered to downgrade to the $75 plan, and he refused, electing to cancel service instead.

  We offer the same speed plans to all customers, so all customers on the 250 plan pay $75, all customers on the gigabit plan pay $175.

  Comparing our service to ****/****** isn't a valid comparison, as it's a different type of service. We're also a small business, where ****** is a much larger national corporation. 

  I'll also note that ****** still owes $718.72 for 3 months of service provided. 

  Regards,
  ****

   

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/01/2025

   
  Complaint: 22705454
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  Please review the provided screenshots, as the company advertises **************** across "all" high-speed data plans. When speaking with a representative, we were guaranteed competitive rates and shown a $75 monthly fee, which aligned with the amount we were paying for our existing service. The document provided is falsified, does not contain my signature, and is not a document we were ever shown prior to setting up service with this company.
  While we understand this is a small business, this does not give them the right to overcharge customersby amounts that are double to triple the advertised price. We expect to pay the "competitive" rate that was advertised, and instead, we feel misled and taken advantage of. We are extremely dissatisfied with the service, terms, and pricing, and we plan to report this to the governing agency that oversees pricing and internet service providers nationwide.
  The company claims to offer competitive pricing, advertising a $75 per month fee with no additional charges and unlimited data across all plans. However, we are being billed much higher rates and locked into terms that were never disclosed. Additionally, I have provided several emails where the company failed to offer proper support, citing their inability to reach our location due to being outside their service area.
  We are requesting a full refund for the unused and improperly billed services, and we are considering legal action to resolve this issue.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *****

  

  Business Response

  Date: 07/01/2025

  RE: BBB Complaint ID ********
  

  Response from Secure by Design

  The customer is unreasonably requesting a refund of more than he's ever paid our company, after more than 3 years of service. He cancelled service with us on November 15th, ending our business relationship.  We don't believe that any further remedy is warranted in this matter, and that the customer is abusing the ******************** complaint process in bad faith, bordering on defamation and harassment.  We request that the complaint be dismissed.

  When we spoke to the customer on the afternoon of November 15th, we presented a number of reasonable options to the customer, including:
  

  1. Downgrading to the $75 plan.
  2. Offered to assist him to troubleshoot any connection problems.
  3. A flexible repayment plan for his past due balance.
  4. Cancellation of his service

  You can see all of these options offered in the email chain the customer provided, see "Gmail - Fiber Pricing.pdf".
  

  He chose to cancel service, which we did, waiving our normal two week notice requirement.  In good faith, I have already reversed half of his November 1st invoice.  The remainder of that invoice covers the service used from November 1st to the 15th.  I also waited until Monday November 18th to process the disconnection request, giving him the weekend to change his mind and ensuring that he wasn't without access over the weekend.
  

  The customer has not provided any new information in his response.   The customer has made and repeated inaccurate claims,which I refute below:
  

  Claim 1: He claims that he never saw our plans, when in fact he was sent a written order form with all of them. He replied back with the faster plan filled in.  All of our invoices show the plan and price, and again, he never disputed those for 3 years!  
  Our web site does show fiber plans From $75, which is correct. The order form shows 3 plans, including one for $75.  The customer selected Broadband ********** costs $175/month.
  

  Here's a timeline of service activation, and documentation the customer received:
  - On July 27th, the customer contacted us about fiber service for the building. I emailed a blank order form listing all plans. See Attachment 1.
  - That afternoon, the customer responded and indicated he wanted the "Broadband 1000" plan, and said he'd send the completed order form.  See Attachment 2.
  - On July 28th, the customer emailed us the completed order form. See Attachment 3, shopinternet.pdf, and shopinternet-annoted.png
  - The service was active and working by August 27th, confirmed by the customer. See Attachment 4.

  We billed for the first month of service on September 1st, 2021.  That invoice was paid September 9th.  The amount of the invoice was never disputed until November 15th, 2024.  See ************************** for a complete listing of invoices and payments, including adjustments.
  

  Note: For ease of review, I've included both a screenshot of the email as an attachment in .png format, along with the original message in .eml format.   The .eml files contain meta-data and digital signatures that can be used to prove conclusively that they were sent through the customer's email address.
  

  Claim 2: He claims that we are a monopoly, when in fact that there are 3 other internet providers listed on the ************** Broadband site that could provide service to his location, in addition to the large incumbents ****** & *****. *********************************************
  

  Claim 3: He claims that our service isn't competitive with those of **** or ****** I've attached a list of **** plans I have from my competitive research files (See ****-plans-2020.png). You can see that our Broadband 250 plan is 10x faster than ****** lowest plan,for less at the time the customer selected our service.  
  

  The customer compares our plans to the current offerings from ****** & ****** however, those were introduced after the **** / ****** merger only recently.
  

  We trust this is sufficient information to resolve the matter.
  

  Thanks,
  **** *****
  

  Owner, Secure by Design

  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 07/01/2025

   
  Complaint: 22705454
  
  I am rejecting the company's response because it does not address the fundamental issues of improper billing practices, misleading advertising, and failure to disclose pricing and terms transparently. I will outline my specific points below and provide evidence to substantiate my claims.
  
  1. Misrepresentation of Pricing and ********************** website and marketing materials clearly advertise that all high-speed plans include unlimited data at no additional cost. This is supported by screenshots of their website and advertisements that I provided with my original complaint. However:
  
  I was billed an additional $25/month for unlimited data, which contradicts their advertised claim of "unlimited data included."
  The quoted price of $75/month, advertised as "competitive," was not honored. Instead, I was billed $175/month, a rate significantly higher than what was promised.
  The company has failed to provide evidence disproving my screenshots or substantiating their claim that the pricing was fully disclosed. The documentation they provided, such as an annotated order form, does not include my signature or acknowledgment.
  
  2. Failure to **************************************** claims that I was sent an order form with the plan details and pricing before service activation. However, I dispute this:
  
  I was never provided a clear breakdown of the plan, terms, or pricing that matched what I was actually billed.
  The plan details provided in their documentation were not disclosed to me at the time of agreement.
  Without clear and accessible information on their website or through written communication prior to activation, customers cannot make informed decisions. This lack of transparency is deceptive and misleading.
  
  3. Improper ******************************** has charged me for services and fees that were not disclosed upfront:
  
  The $25/month fee for unlimited data is inconsistent with their advertised claims.
  My monthly charges exceeded the advertised rate of $75/month, without justification or explanation.
  Additionally, the company's claim that I did not dispute charges for three years is irrelevant. Upon reviewing my invoices and the company's website, it became evident that I was being overcharged, and I raised this issue promptly when I identified the discrepancy.
  
  4. Failure to ****************************************** references competitors like **** and ***** to justify their pricing. However:
  
  The $175/month I was charged is not competitive with local providers, as evidenced by the pricing I submitted from ****, ****** and ******.
  The companys assertion that these rates became competitive only after a recent merger does not absolve them of the obligation to honor their earlier advertised pricing.
  5. Unsubstantiated Claims of Defamation and *************************** assertion that my complaint constitutes defamation or harassment is baseless and inappropriate. As a consumer, I have the right to file a complaint regarding misleading practices and overcharges. My claims are supported by documentation, and my concerns are raised in good faith.
  
  6. Requested Remedy
  I am requesting a full refund for the improperly billed charges, including:
  
  The $25/month fee for unlimited data that was advertised as included in the plan.
  The difference between the advertised $75/month rate and the $175/month rate I was charged.
  I urge the BBB to review the evidence I provided, including screenshots of the company's website and advertisements, as well as my billing statements, to substantiate my claims. If the company cannot provide clear, verifiable evidence that their practices align with their advertising, I believe their actions constitute a violation of consumer protection standards.
  
  Sincerely,
  ****** *****
  

  

  Business Response

  Date: 14/01/2025

  See response3.pdf

  Customer Answer

  Date: 15/01/2025

  I am rejecting Secure by Designs response, as it continues to fail to address the primary issues of misleading advertising, improper billing practices, and lack of transparency. Below, I address their points in detail.
  
  1. Misrepresentation of Pricing and Plans
  Secure by Design claims I was billed only $175/month for the "Business 1000" plan, with no additional charges for unlimited data. However:
  Evidence of misleading advertising: The company's website and promotional materials clearly state that "unlimited data" is included at no additional cost for all high-speed plans. I provided screenshots substantiating this claim. There is no indication on their website or in their marketing that unlimited data is considered an "add-on."
  Price discrepancies: The advertised competitive rate of $75/month was never honored, despite being the plan I originally sought. The company claims I knowingly selected the $175/month plan, but I dispute this. The annotated order form they provided was never sent to me, and I did not authorize those terms.
  Invoices are irrelevant to the misleading advertising issue: While the invoices may reflect $175/month, they do not negate the misleading advertising or failure to disclose the true costs before activation. The problem lies in the lack of upfront clarity, not the technical details of the invoices.
  
  2. Failure to Provide Transparent Terms
  Secure by Design asserts that I was sent an order form and had "plenty of time" to review it before activation. However:
  The documentation they provided (e.g., the annotated order form) does not have my signature, nor does it reflect an agreement to a $175/month plan.
  No transparency prior to activation: As noted, their website and promotional materials advertised a $75/month competitive rate for high-speed plans. There was no clear communication that I would be charged $175/month instead.
  I paid invoices as they arrived, assuming they reflected the advertised rates. Once I reviewed the discrepancies and confirmed the misleading advertising, I filed this complaint promptly.
  
  3. Improper Billing Practices
  Secure by Design claims I was never billed $25/month for unlimited data, though they acknowledge it was listed on their annotated order form. However:
  The $25 fee contradicts their advertising, which promises unlimited data included with all high-speed plans. The existence of this fee is itself evidence of deceptive practices.
  The company's acknowledgment that I "authorized" this fee on the annotated form further undermines their claim that unlimited data is included at no additional charge.
  
  4. Failure to Address Competitive Pricing
  Secure by Design argues that my concerns about competitive pricing are "opinion" and provides examples of plans from competitors. However:
  Local competitors pricing is demonstrably better: ****, ****** and ****** consistently offer rates more competitive than $175/month for similar or better speeds. The companys claim that my concerns are "opinion" ignores the evidence I submitted of these lower rates.
  The company mischaracterizes my selection of their service: I was assured the service was competitive and aligned with the $75/month pricing I sought. I would not have knowingly agreed to pay $175/month for internet service that is not competitive.
  
  5. Claims of Defamation and Harassment
  Secure by Design accuses me of defamation for challenging the validity of their documentation. My concerns about the authenticity of the annotated order form are not defamatory:
  No signed agreement: I have never seen or signed the annotated order form provided by the company. I have the right to question its validity, especially given the lack of transparency and the discrepancies in their advertised terms.
  My complaint is raised in good faith and supported by evidence, including screenshots of the companys misleading advertising. Their attempt to frame this as harassment is inappropriate and unwarranted.
  
  6. Requested Remedy
  I reject the companys demand for me to pay an outstanding balance for services that were improperly billed and advertised. My requests remain as follows:
  Refund for overcharges: I request a refund of the difference between the advertised $75/month rate and the $175/month rate I was improperly billed.
  Accountability for misleading advertising: The company should be required to clarify their pricing and plans on their website and in all marketing materials to prevent further confusion and harm to consumers.
  
  Conclusion
  Secure by Design has not addressed the core issue: they failed to honor the advertised pricing and included fees inconsistent with their claims. I request that the BBB review the evidence I have submitted, including screenshots of their misleading advertising and my billing records, to reach a fair resolution.
  Sincerely,
  ****** *****

  Customer Answer

  Date: 15/01/2025

  I am writing to clarify and expand upon my previous response, as there are critical details that were omitted, particularly regarding the pricing agreement and the nature of the service provider relationship. This response includes information provided via phone and email, as well as screenshots and other documentation submitted previously.
  
  1. Pricing Agreement Over the Phone
  The monthly fee of $175 is not the amount we agreed to during initial communications over the phone when setting up the service with columbia basin broadband. During those communications, I was explicitly told the price would be $75/month, aligning with the companys advertised claims of "competitive" and comparable rates with local providers such as *****, ******, and ****.
  
  It is important to note that Secure by Design is not the company initially contacted to set up our internet service. The parent company that manages the internet service, ********************, was the entity we dealt with for installation. The modem was installed by their team, and pricing was explained during that process. It was a surprise when Secure by Design later contacted us unprompted, seemingly out of nowhere, and demanded payments far higher than what had been agreed upon we expressed concerns and we're lead to believe things would be corrected.
  
  This situation highlights the confusion and potential unlawfulness of companies reselling services in this manner without transparency. Legal counsel we consulted has agreed that this arrangement is unclear and raises significant concerns. Secure by Design's assertion that customers would "willingly pay more when no other option exists" is unfair and exploitative. The company cannot unilaterally decide to charge more than the agreed amount or operate in this opaque manner.
  
  Additionally, Secure by Design claimed in their previous response that ***** advertised a price of $175/month for a 350 Mbps plan, but this is inaccurate for residential service pricing and does not align with industry standards.
  
  The company also ignored setup fees and billing adjustments that were communicated prior to service activation. They continued to bill incorrectly, disregarded emails for months, and pressured us to pay by issuing threats of service termination and non-payment reporting. This created undue stress, especially as we were under the false impression that no other service providers were available in our area.
  
  Since then, we have confirmed that ***** and ****** do serve our location and are now paying less than $100/month for significantly faster service. This further demonstrates that Secure by Designs pricing is unreasonable and not competitive.
  
  2. Service Provider Relationship and Resale
  Secure by Design is reselling service from ********************, as detailed in this public release: Columbia Basin Trust Service Expansion. While Secure by Design acts as a support or intermediary, they have failed in the following ways:
  
  Failure to provide clear pricing information: I was never notified of the true cost of the service before setup. The $175/month rate was not disclosed, nor was any agreement to this amount obtained from me in writing or otherwise.
  Misleading advertising: As stated previously, their website and marketing materials prominently advertised a $75/month rate as competitive and comparable, which was also communicated during our initial setup discussions.
  3. Comparison to Local Providers
  To further substantiate my claims, I have provided:
  
  Screenshots of pricing from 2019 and current rates for comparable services offered by *****, ******, and ****. These confirm that Secure by Designs $175/month rate is not competitive, contrary to their claims.
  Prior billing records from our previous provider, showing that we were paying less than half of Secure by Designs rate for faster service.
  This evidence demonstrates that the $175/month rate is unreasonable and inconsistent with what was advertised or agreed upon.
  
  4. Attempts to Resolve the Issue
  I have made multiple efforts to resolve this matter, including:
  
  Emails sent to Secure by Design questioning the high billing amounts and discrepancies.
  Phone calls with their representatives, including as recently as today, to discuss these ongoing issues.
  Despite these attempts, the company has failed to address or resolve my concerns and continues to operate without transparency.
  
  5. Summary of Issues
  To summarize:
  
  The $175/month rate was never agreed upon. I was promised $75/month, consistent with their advertising and claims.
  The company failed to provide transparent pricing or obtain my agreement to the true cost of the service.
  Secure by Design is reselling a service provided by ******************** but has failed to fulfill their responsibilities, including support and clear communication.
  Requested Remedy
  I continue to request the following:
  
  Refund for overcharges: A refund for the difference between the $75/month rate discussed and the $175/month rate billed.
  Accountability for misleading advertising and poor transparency: The company must clearly display accurate pricing and terms for all plans online and in all communications to prevent future harm to customers.
  Thank you for considering this additional information as part of my complaint. I trust the BBB will carefully review the evidence I have provided to reach a fair resolution.
  
  Sincerely,
  ****** *****

  

  Business Response

  Date: 16/01/2025

  See SBD-Response4.pdf for a full response.

   

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 16/01/2025

  I am rejecting Secure by Designs response, as it contains inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and fails to address the fundamental issues of misleading advertising, lack of transparency, and unauthorized billing practices. Below, I will refute their claims and provide conclusive evidence to support my position.
  
  1. I Did Not Agree to the $175/Month Plan
  Secure by Design claims that I explicitly agreed to pay $175/month by submitting a completed order form. This is unequivocally false:
  
  The provided order form is not legitimate: I have never seen, completed, or submitted the document they reference. They have not provided a signed contract or any confirmation of my explicit agreement to this pricing.
  The price quoted over the phone was $75/month: During the initial phone call, I was informed that the price for the service would be $75/month, consistent with their advertising and marketed as comparable with local providers.
  Emails do not demonstrate agreement: While Secure by Design references email communication, this does not prove that I agreed to the terms they claim. It merely shows that correspondence occurred.
  Without clear evidence of my agreement to the $175/month plan, billing me at this rate is improper and unauthorized.
  
  2. Misleading Advertising and Lack of Transparency
  Secure by Design has failed to address their misleading advertising practices:
  
  Advertised $75/month rate: Their website and promotional materials clearly advertised a $75/month starting rate for fiber internet plans, positioned as competitive with other local providers. Screenshots I submitted support this claim.
  No disclosure of the $175/month rate: At no point before installation or activation was I informed that I would be billed $175/month. The first indication of this pricing came in my invoices after the service was already active.
  Inconsistent documentation: The annotated order form they provided includes a $75/month plan as an option, which further supports my claim that this was the rate I agreed to. Secure by Design has failed to explain why I would knowingly select a higher-priced plan when the $75/month option was available and suited my needs.
  These practices demonstrate a lack of transparency and an attempt to mislead customers about actual costs.
  
  3. Misrepresentation of Service Provider Relationship
  Secure by Design claims that ******************** (***) is their wholesale supplier and not their parent company. While I now understand this arrangement, it was not clearly communicated at the time of service setup:
  
  Initial contact and installation were handled by *** representatives, not Secure by Design. I was under the impression that *** was the primary provider, and the quoted pricing of $75/month came from them.
  Secure by Design only became involved after installation, introducing unexpected charges that were never disclosed beforehand.
  Regardless of their relationship with CBT, Secure by Design failed to communicate their role or pricing structure clearly.
  
  4. Comparison to Local Providers
  Secure by Design attempts to justify their $175/month rate by comparing it to business internet plans. However:
  
  The $75/month rate was marketed as competitive for residential use, which is why I selected their service. I have provided screenshots of their advertising and evidence of my previous bills to support this claim.
  Current and past bills from competitors, including *****, ****, and ******, demonstrate that Secure by Designs $175/month rate is not competitive for similar or better speeds.
  Their attempt to frame this as a business plan does not align with their advertising or the information I was given during setup.
  
  5. Billing Issues and Threats of Termination
  Secure by Design states that I did not raise concerns about billing until November 2024. This is incorrect:
  
  I raised concerns about high billing amounts multiple times via email and phone calls. These inquiries were either ignored or dismissed.
  Secure by Design used threats of service termination and reporting to collections to force payment, despite the lack of clarity regarding the billed amount.
  This created undue stress, especially as I initially believed they were the only provider available in my area. Since switching providers, I now pay less than $100/month for faster service, further underscoring the unreasonableness of their pricing.
  
  6. Attempts to Resolve the Issue
  Secure by Design claims the issue has been resolved because I switched providers. This is misleading:
  
  I switched providers because Secure by Design failed to honor the pricing originally discussed and refused to address my concerns.
  Their demand for an outstanding balance of $718.72 is baseless, as it reflects charges that were never agreed upon and were the result of misleading advertising.
  Final Summary and Requested Remedy
  To prevent further escalation, I am requesting the following:
  
  Refund for overcharges: A refund for the difference between the agreed $75/month rate and the $175/month rate billed.
  Accountability for misleading practices: Secure by Design must update their advertising to accurately reflect pricing and improve transparency in their service agreements.
  Cancellation of any alleged balance: The claimed outstanding balance of $718.72 should be waived, as it is based on unauthorized and disputed charges.
  Secure by Design has failed to provide clear, verifiable evidence of my agreement to their terms. Without such evidence, their claims are invalid, and I trust the BBB will review the evidence I have submitted to reach a fair resolution.
  
  Sincerely,
  ****** *****