dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4177
share rss forum feed


Money

@videotron.ca
reply to Stats

Re: CCTS Annual Report

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:22
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.
Expand your moderator at work


kim
That Chick
Premium,Mod
join:2001-03-25
ON
kudos:6
reply to Stats

Re: CCTS Annual Report

Going forward let's try to stay with the original topic of the CCTS Annual Report.
--
Fluent in 3 languages: English, Sarcasm and Sexual Innuendo.



ahh drool

@videotron.ca

The ISP Summit is going on. Some tidbits:

In regards to filed complaints with the CCTS:
"43% of complaints get no response by service provider"

So almost half of the complaints we see in the reports above are due to the ISP just ignoring people who have been ripped off.

Interesting, but no one should be surprised.



diskace
Electronic Box CEO
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-21
reply to resa1983

said by resa1983:

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.

Exactly.

However, if it turns out the service provider is right, the investigation fee should be paid by the opening party. That would be fair and some consumers that are wrong would think about it twice before jumping the gun.

It is not fair we have to pay the bill for complaints about stuff customers is wrong about.

FYI the annual fee is 500-25 000$ + 70-350$ per complaints.
--
Electronic Box Inc. - Jean-Philippe Béïque
Ebox forum »ELECTRONICBOX


hm

@videotron.ca

said by diskace:

[
FYI the annual fee is 500-25 000$ + 70-350$ per complaints.

Thanks for putting some numbers to it diskace.

Are you able to add more detail to this?

For example:
How much does it cost for each stage the complaint gets to?

If your annul cost is based on the total customers you have? Or based on the previous years total filed complaints?


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to diskace

said by diskace:

However, if it turns out the service provider is right, the investigation fee should be paid by the opening party. That would be fair and some consumers that are wrong would think about it twice before jumping the gun.

Absolutely not. The last thing we want to do is to create an environment that causes people to be afraid of lodging a complaint for fear of having to pay costs, even if they are 100% right from the get-go. One only needs to look at the Bell repair fees that get passed on to customers and the fact that people are outright afraid to call wholesale ISPs for repair issues due to the mere possibility of that $95 fee being charged. That is not the kind of environment the federal government and the CRTC intended when they created the CCTS.

Just like credit card merchant, the fees paid to the CCTS are a cost of doing business. The customer should under no circumstances be on the hook to pay those fees directly.


diskace
Electronic Box CEO
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-21

said by Gone:

Just like credit card merchant, the fees paid to the CCTS are a cost of doing business. The customer should under no circumstances be on the hook to pay those fees directly.

Well i somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. While i agree a customer should not fear to lodge a valid complaint you can clearly see where abuse of this complaint forum will take. Raise of cost for the greater majority.

In court, the party that lose generally have to pay some of the fees involved. That makes sense to me. So you don't go to court unless you evaluate your case with a certain level of seriousness.

The CCTS received 12k complaints up from 2k 2 years ago. The complaint growth is exponential and it's only the beginning. I fear that as soon as a consumer is not happy he will threaten to lodge a complaint.

It's the same problem that merchant face with charge back. The merchant is screwed.
--
Electronic Box Inc. - Jean-Philippe Béïque
Ebox forum »ELECTRONICBOX


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

But the CCTS isn't a court. It's more akin to an ombudsman for the industry. Under no circumstances should anyone be held responsible for costs associated with taking an issue to an ombudsman.

I would take this further to say that if there are an inordinately high number of complaints it is up to the CCTS to create a better intake and investigation process that is more cost effective to the membership.

And let's be frank - if the industry policed themselves in a more effective way instead of being so well-known for customer dissatisfaction that the government was forced to step in to temper the situation, no one would have found themselves in this sort of situation to begin with. While you may run a tight ship, you'll forgive me for saying that I have no sympathy for any company that pays for membership in the CCTS.



diskace
Electronic Box CEO
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-21

said by Gone:

While you may run a tight ship, you'll forgive me for saying that I have no sympathy for any company that pays for membership in the CCTS.

We try to

You are forced to pay the participation package fee once you get your first complaint.

I am not sure there is a difference between membership and participation.
--
Electronic Box Inc. - Jean-Philippe Béïque
Ebox forum »ELECTRONICBOX


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

I assumed membership and participation were one in the same.

Don't get me wrong, I know what it's like to run a business and all the work involved. I just think that this is one of those things that you have no choice but to suck up as a cost of doing business in your particular industry. It's not your fault, it's the incumbents.



diskace
Electronic Box CEO
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-21

I don't agree with this model and i believe it may eventually be a failure. Mark my words. Cost will go up insanely in 3-5 years when public awareness raise and 200k complaints will be lodged for random stuff. People abuse just like corporation abuse and i can't see a happy ending to all of this unless the losing party is imposed a fee and/or that CCTS do not accept random complaints about stuff isp don't even have control over such as DMC fees or 'up to x Mbp/s).

I have looked at the CCTS annual report and it seems a lot of complaints are about client who don't understand the technology (speed advertised as up to 6 Mbits for example). Billing related complaints can be more tricky but basic stuff should be denied otherwise CCTS will be kind of the police that write 55$ parking tickets. Another tax for canadians.
--
Electronic Box Inc. - Jean-Philippe Béïque
Ebox forum »ELECTRONICBOX



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

Like I said, if things get out of control it should be on the CCTS to provide a modified intake process and/or modify their fee schedule.

Punishing customers for dismissed claims is not the answer, though.



diskace
Electronic Box CEO
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-21

I agree with you. The CCTS governance have the responsibility to modify the process. Right now it's no big deal because it's not yet popular.

Just for sake of argument do you know any industry where you can complaint to an independent body about a service and the merchant get slapped by a fee after your complaint (doesn't matter if it was a valid one or not) ?

Just thinking how this would apply to the retail industry or in a brick and mortar business.
--
Electronic Box Inc. - Jean-Philippe Béïque
Ebox forum »ELECTRONICBOX



Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

I didn't say it was perfect, I am merely saying that the industry that your business operates in isn't exactly known for outstanding customer service. Something like the CCTS was the only logical result.

My business is considered "construction industry" by the CRA. As a result, I have a slew of additional forms that need to be filed and regulations I need to follow that other businesses don't. When your industry gets a certain reputation, it doesn't matter how upstanding your own business may be, you still get lumped in with everyone else. All you can do is operate your business in an upstanding way and ensure that you follow all the regulations you need to.



hm

@videotron.ca
reply to diskace

said by diskace:

Just for sake of argument do you know any industry where you can complaint to an independent body about a service and the merchant get slapped by a fee after your complaint (doesn't matter if it was a valid one or not) ?

I think all 3rd party ombudsman entities are like this.

Off the top of my head the only one I can think of that actually charges people is the Régie de l’énergie (Quebec Energy board). They charge 30$ for you to even make a complaint. If your complaint is accepted they refund the 30$ (and before you file a complaint with them, you have to show written proof from your energy company that you tried to resolve the issue).

Do you have the resources to put an ombudsman in place? Basically you are paying for the use of an ombudsman (with guidance/board-directors from various entities like PIAC).

And as gone stated, the industry itself (Bell, Rogers, Telus et al) made this situation by how they tried, and still do, try to gouge people and provide the very bare minimum, if any, in quality service, billing and dispute resolution. Not to mention the failure of the CWTA (the wireless astroturf sock-puppet association).

Since we know Acanac & teksavvy's stats (shown here: »Re: CCTS Annual Report) let's use them as an example with the pricing you gave up above.

Acanac: 78 complaints
Reg fee: 500$
78*$70= $5,460
Basic Total: $5960 + their time for 78 complaints + any good will resolution + awards

Teksavvy: 32 complaints
Reg fee: 500$
32*$70= $2,240
Basic Total: $2,740 + their time for 32 complaints + any good will resolution + awards

In the grand scheme of things, that isn't a lot in a year. Is it worth it to you to even hire someone? It would cost you more to hire/pay someone for 5-hrs a week for a year, as in teksavvys case.

In addition, from a quality, managerial, and service point of view, any good company would use the stats generated from this ombudsman service to attack the area's in their companies weakness that lead to these ombudsman complaints in order to:
A) Better protect themselves
B) Better serve the beloved customer
C) Complete the Quality Cycle
D) Make their policies clearer.
E) Evaluate the costs of acceptable loss and risk
F) Educate employee's.

This separates the champs from the chumps.

Just saying for sake of argument...

LostTheGame

join:2012-11-24
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·ELECTRONICBOX
reply to carcajou

said by carcajou:

but that they forbid simultaneous litigation to take your case shows they also protect companies.

The CCTS is a mediator; plain and simple. litigation can set precedence; CCTS decisions cannot.


acanacuser

@acanac.net

i user acanac and i would recommend them also.
over teksavvy any day .
having had both. acanac has just been far more stable in my experience and far more interested in providing me a valuable service
rather then, paying employees large $ to be there to help with issues on in bell/rogers/cogeco's control and timeframe anyway.



AcanacUser

@acanac.net

I've had Acanac for over a year, and their system is fairly stable, and the speed is good. However, don't bother trying to call their customer support - it's virtually non-existent. Also the referral program is worthless, I have referred a friend who signed up, and they gave me a run-a-round because he signed up with Cable and my service is DSL. So I never got the free month.

My one year is almost up, and you would expect they would offer me the same deal they offer new customers to keep me, but are offering me the service at full-price. I hate it when providers do this "only for new customers" it's bullshit!

Bottom line is this; their customer service is crap; their technical support is virtual non-existent, their referral program is bull, and their retention strategy is not appealing (to me). At the end of the day, although their prices are low, there's a lot left to be wished for...

I'm currently looking at other options and start and ebox are starting to look quite appealing.