dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4302
share rss forum feed


Stats

@videotron.ca

CCTS Annual Report

Anyone find the time to look over the CCTS's annual report?

»www.ccts-cprst.ca/documents/annu···011-2012

Nothing that we haven't seen here in these forums, in terms of ISP complaints.

Did you check out the stats?

Acanac (in terms of resellers) is certainly near the top of the list. But, who here didn't really expect that? Be honest...
»www.ccts-cprst.ca/wp-content/upl···ider.pdf

Lots of funny and interesting tidbits in those reports.

Both Bell and Rogers top around 2000+ complaints, Videotron around 200+. But these providers do all services (TV, Telco, wireless and internet). That makes Acanac really look bad by comparison given the size of their complaints and only one service provided.



Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

Comwave and Primus are worse.

For what it's worth, Teksavvy is up there, too.



mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to Stats

Interesting, Globalive has no complaints and Mobilicity has 45.

Ah, I see split names even though Globalive and Wind Mobile is basically the same thing.



TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to Gone

I'll get a list to see what those were all about and when they occurred... To be noted, our base isn't split between a number of companies either.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to mlerner

said by mlerner:

Interesting, Globalive has no complaints and Mobilicity has 45.

Check under Wind Mobile. 391 accepted complaints. 311 resolved. None which went past investigation phase.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
reply to Stats

It's also relevant to the client base size. If a company only has 1000 clients and 10 complaints it would be allot worse than another company with 100K clients and 100 complaints.

We also offer more than just one service.
We are currently offering DSL Internet, Cable Internet, Voip Phone service and soon TV service.

In the end the goal should be to always improve the service quality. The tough part is to strike the correct balance between growth and quality of service while still getting the best bang for the buck.



mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5

said by Acanac Inc:

In the end the goal should be to always improve the service quality. The tough part is to strike the correct balance between growth and quality of service while still getting the best bang for the buck.

That's where you guys fall down. Whatever statements and promises you make, you really need to improve support and service quality because I know of no one that will ever recommend Acanac over other indies.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Gone

yeah.. I noticed Comwave. But aren't they in Bed with that pyramid scheme ACN? All of which owned (or major interest owned) by Donald Trump?

I seem to recall a Comwave ACN connection, but I could be completely wrong here. Just rings a Bell. Pretty sure there was some competition bureau investigation I recall reading (both American and Canadian) that named both. But, again, I could be wrong... old age you know



true but

@videotron.ca
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

Comwave and Primus are worse.

For what it's worth, Teksavvy is up there, too.

100% less than Acanac.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to mlerner

"Accepted" complaints, top 5:

Comwave: 191
Acanac Inc.: 78
ACN Canada: 68
Distributel + 3web: 42
TekSavvy: 32

Excluded Primus since they also do mobile, which the others do not. And which, per the CCTS, has the highest number of complaints. So we can't distinguish/compare them. The other resellers we can.

Not sure if I missed any in the top 5.

I didn't notice if they break down each company per service offered. They should.



Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON
reply to mlerner

It's an ongoing process and one that I put allot of resources into. In the end it's a balance. It's also about perception. For example your comment above in regards to Acanac getting no referrals. It's the exact opposite. At this time a good portion of our orders are coming from referrals and not direct advertising.



mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5

said by Acanac Inc:

It's an ongoing process and one that I put allot of resources into. In the end it's a balance. It's also about perception. For example your comment above in regards to Acanac getting no referrals. It's the exact opposite. At this time a good portion of our orders are coming from referrals and not direct advertising.

Sure although if you still have the referral program I can see why. »www.acanac.ca/Referral-Program.html

The problem with that is people will refer other people only to get the financial incentive i.e. free internet. What would be interesting is seeing the stats of referrals and if they stay longer than 6 months and that would tell the complete picture.


Acanac Inc
Premium
join:2007-03-05
Mississauga, ON

I can tell you that we have one of the lowest attrition rates in the industry. (Year over year)

We target a certain type of client that on average is looking for the best bang for the buck.

Let's assume we hired another 100 staff members while also increasing the rates and reducing the bandwidth allotments to cover the costs.

In my opinion this would be detrimental to the company. It's simply not our target market.



mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5

The problem is and I admit a challenge for every industry is, no matter the cost you will sooner or later have to raise rates or risk your customer base as you keep growing. Teksavvy I think ran into almost exactly the same situation and could have ended up in a bad situation.

I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of business but I have seen those situations frequently and it's a tough spot.

Value propositions like offering referrals can also cause or increase problems if the customer specifically chooses to subscribe only because of that.



Zilch

@videotron.ca

Ebox has zero complaints. I don't even see their name on the list!

Just say'n.



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Acanac Inc

said by Acanac Inc:

It's also relevant to the client base size.

Well... Let's look at it this way.

Videotron has over a million TV subs
Videotron has over a million internet subs
Videotron has over a million phone subs
Videotron has something like 0.5-million mobile/wireless subs

Total complaints: ~200 (keep in mind wireless is the bulk of the complaints).

Acanac for a single service: 78

I would call that significant, and very high considering client base size.

Cogeco has ~88.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28

Most people don't know CCTS even exists yet.. And most don't have the propensity to file a complaint having never had anywhere to turn to before or just don't ever take the time...

In contrast, most of our users will know about these things and won't be afraid to use it if they feel necessary.

I'd say its fair to compare similar sized entities to one another and also against what they're trying to achieve...
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy



dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..
reply to Acanac Inc

said by Acanac Inc:

It's an ongoing process and one that I put allot of resources into. In the end it's a balance. It's also about perception. For example your comment above in regards to Acanac getting no referrals. It's the exact opposite. At this time a good portion of our orders are coming from referrals and not direct advertising.

FWIW, I know 2 people, one a neighbour, the other a friend's neighbour, that use Acanac. Both sing Acanac's praises up and down.

My neighbour thinks I'm nuts for not being with Acanac and tries to convert me damn near every time I see him. Seriously, the dude has Acanac rabies.

My friend's neighbour, when I suggested she consider trying TSI, went white as a sheet. She's been with Acanac forever. Not one problem. Ever. I don't think she likes me any more.

Acanac has it's fair share of fanboys.

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Cogeco UBB, No Modem Required - »[Niagara] 40gb of "usage" while the modem is unplugged


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5

And you should ask if either one if they're paying for their Acanac connection, or if they have a 'freebie' from the referrals.



fiestaware

join:2008-01-07
reply to Stats

Yes yes yes - Acanac sucks™ - we all agree. Somehow Acanac thinks the excusesplanations that didn't suffice 5 years ago, and didn't suffice 2 years ago, will satisfy today. Oh Paul, don't you know you can't have "growing pains" at your age?!



Money

@videotron.ca
reply to Stats

BTW, the CCTS states the number of complaints dictates how much a company must pay the CCTS.

Does anyone know how they work that out? Or how much a company pays per complaint?


carcajou

join:2012-10-16
Riviere-Beaudette, QC
Reviews:
·Acanac

2 edits

Many people think the CCTS is an arm of the CRTC, but it is just a complaints resolution scheme created by the telecom companies themselves. They all pay a contribution to make it function and I think it s normal that a company that has many complaints would have to contribute more to its budget. After all, that company causes a certain expense to treat each complaint.

Employers who have many accidents at work also pay more to the Workers Compensation Board. It s the same principle.

I also found out by experience that the CCTS will accept your complaint only if they are the only organism that is mandated by you to get a financial settlement for you. If you tell them you are also using other means, they decline your case because they are an arbitration scheme. You cannot at the same time use litigation like Small Claims Court.

I have no reason to think they are not impartial at the CCTS, but that they forbid simultaneous litigation to take your case shows they also protect companies.



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to Stats

You're lying. The CCTS was not created by the telecom companies. They pay a contribution to run it because they're required by the CRTC to do so.

As for only accepting complaints for companies who you're actually a customer of, that makes perfect sense, and could not be any other way. All ISPs with revenue over $10 million are required to participate.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to carcajou

said by carcajou:

Employers who have many accidents at work also pay more to the Workers Compensation Board. It s the same principle.

I also found out by experience that the CCTS will accept your complaint only if they are the only organism that is mandated by you to get a financial settlement for you. If you tell them you are also using other means, they decline your case because they are an arbitration scheme. You cannot at the same time use litigation like Small Claims Court.

Which makes sense.

carcajou

join:2012-10-16
Riviere-Beaudette, QC
Reviews:
·Acanac

1 edit
reply to Guspaz

Ok I ll make myself clearer using the CCTS own documentation.

1) I said that the CCTS is not part of the CRTC and are not a government agency as appears here in their FAQ.

( Beginning of quote from the CCTS FAQ )

5. Are you a government department?

No, we are a private, not-for-profit corporation incorporated under federal legislation. We receive no taxpayer money – and we do not seek any.

6. So how are your operations funded?

The CRTC, Canada’s telecom regulator, ordered all providers to participate in CCTS and to provide its funding. Industry funding is typical for “ombudsman” type organizations like ours, both in Canada and around the world.( End of quote )

So, yes the telecoms were " ordered " to create it, but they still CREATED it and entirely FUND IT whether you like it or not ( and whether THEY liked it or not ). I fully admit the word " created " was a bad choice of words. Replace it with " were forced to create ". But it is a PRIVATE organization owned by the telecoms.

Now, I never said they were not impartial because of that.
You also misread me regarding the reason they declined to take my complaint. I was a client of a member. But I preferred to keep my litigation options open rather than go for arbitration.

The moment you say you gave a mandate to another organism to collect your money, they decline taking your complaint.


carcajou

join:2012-10-16
Riviere-Beaudette, QC
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to hm

said by hm :

said by carcajou:

I also found out by experience that the CCTS will accept your complaint only if they are the only organism that is mandated by you to get a financial settlement for you. If you tell them you are also using other means, they decline your case because they are an arbitration scheme. You cannot at the same time use litigation like Small Claims Court.

Which makes sense.

Yes it makes sense in a way. But it means in practice that they will simply examine if the ISP fulfilled his obligations as per the contract/TOS between you and the ISP and the CCTS will decide if you should get refunded.
But they dont pass judgment on the ISP s general business practices for example.
Or if you are entitled to a charge back from your credit card issuer, they are suddenly not interested in the case also even if those business practices are scandalous. You ll get an automatic refund from your bank...then it s not their problem.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Guspaz

said by Guspaz:

All ISPs with revenue over $10 million are required to participate.

That changed.

All telecom providers must join within 3 (or is it 5) days upon notice that the CCTS received a complaint against them. Think that changed a little over a year ago.

Here, I looked into it and found it:
Providers not currently participating in CCTS have to
join within five days of being advised by CCTS that we have
received a complaint from one of their customers.


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to carcajou

said by carcajou:

1. But it is a PRIVATE organization owned by the telecoms.

2. I was a client of a member. But I preferred to keep my litigation options open rather than go for arbitration.

1. Seems the consumers groups have an issue with the CCTS as well. See:
»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-341.htm
and
»www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2011/···4330.htm

Seems the CCTS defines anything as being a consumer group. Even a group with vested interests in telecom.

So yeah, the CCTS is like an industry astroturf group (just like the CWTA) and nothing more. Who gets to nominate/vote in consumer representatives from real consumer groups to the board of directors is loaded and total bullsh*t.

2. You don't lose your right to go to court. Matter of fact you can tell the CCTS to stuff it is you don't like what they come back with. Nothing is binding on you.

But it makes sense that you shouldn't have a file open in court, the CCTS and whatever else at the same time. It's not like you can pick and chose the best decision.

Why would you need to file in court and then go to the CCTS?

The CCTS is ok for people to scared of court, or too intimidated by the whole process and learning how to file in small claims. Does the CRTC serve justice? No. Not at all, as you pointed out. That is what the courts are for.

BTW, why would you file in court and then go to the CCTS? Why would you even bother with them?

---
Anyhow, my question still remains open for any of the so-called indi's here to answer (or anyone else who knows for sure):

The CCTS states the number of complaints dictates how much a company must pay the CCTS.

Does anyone know how they work that out? Or how much a company pays per complaint?

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10

I would assume how much the company pays is dependent on how far the complaint got in the process.. Ie A full on decision (end of the line) would cost a company more, than if they were to settle the complaint at say just the investigation phase. More time & effort put into it by CCTS, more money to compensate CCTS for that time. Would also be a good way to get companies to negotiate sooner in the process.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP


carcajou

join:2012-10-16
Riviere-Beaudette, QC
Reviews:
·Acanac

4 edits
reply to hm

said by hm :

said by carcajou:

1. But it is a PRIVATE organization owned by the telecoms.

2. I was a client of a member. But I preferred to keep my litigation options open rather than go for arbitration.

BTW, why would you file in court and then go to the CCTS? Why would you even bother with them?

I fully agree that my own complaint about MONEY could only be brought either in front of the CCTS OR the Court.

But really, I saw TWO separate things here. I had a claim but it s a minor thing in the big picture. I wanted an organism to look at the general business practices of my ISP and judge if they are justified and/or legitimate in this country in 2012.

I had asked a charge back to my credit card issuer and I knew very well that my bank had no choice: either they would collect from Acanac or the bank would compensate me themselves. So should that be enough to tranquilize me ? You might just as well ask me why I m here ranting when I actually got my refund already.

The CCTS was not interested in hearing my point of view from the Consumers rights perspective, When I told them my bank would compensate me anyway, it was the end of it for them.

So I moved on to the OPC ( Office de Protection du Consommateur ) and I intend to keep that complaint going even if I was paid. In Quebec, we have the most advanced set of Laws for Consumers rights in Canada ( you ll often see in the telecoms contracts that there are clauses just for Quebec residents ). So I now want to know if that agency ( the OPC ) will look at Acanac s business practices and if they will actually do something about it even if my own money is back in my pocket.

Acanac already received a formal " Avis " from that provincial govt agency in november 2011. Let s see if they get a second one. Their file there is getting thicker every month. But such formal notice is probably the most they ll do with a company operating from another jurisdiction. They have the power to prosecute, but that power probably stops at the demarcation line with Ontario.