dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12997
share rss forum feed


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

Re: Teksavvy sucks

Yeah, not cool..

Really, they applied a DMC on top of it? That doesn't seem right. Wouldn't that be part of an install fee?
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


Sounds fair

@videotron.ca
reply to TSI Marc
So in essence, the guy played us all and wasn't honest. Shame on him.

I am trying to figure out if there is an advantage to doing this.

With Bell: getting them and and then cancelling in a month, in theory if played right, gets your decrepit 40 year old copper fixed up. It's the only way to get this done w/o hassles and ridiculous DMC fee's.

But with a reseller? I see no advantage for him doing this.

Motive wise? The only thing I can come up with is to play your current ISP to get better pricing. And this would only work with Bell. Bell would call you the next day after 3rd party installation and ask you to cancel to get a better price.

Roger though? I haven't read this with Rogers. Rogers tends to give you this opportunity window of lower fee's only before they remove their service and before the cancellation goes through.

So I find it puzzling. I see no advantage to using a 3rd party provider in any way like this. I am only aware of this working with Bell. Am I missing something?

Kane Hart

join:2012-11-17
reply to dfs4
How much I would give my left ball to have Teksavvy as my ISP in Barrie for Cable. Can we kill this guy! :P

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

Yeah, not cool..

Really, they applied a DMC on top of it? That doesn't seem right. Wouldn't that be part of an install fee?

The way the ticket closed, it looks like they will. Bell decided to do this one as a Save Visit order (the pair should have already been assigned to the customer's house - no existing Bell service), so they never dispatched a tech when we ordered.

It was only when our tech showed up that we found there was no dialtone at the demarc, so we had to open a ticket.

We're going to argue it, but you really never know how those turn out...
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
reply to Sounds fair
said by Sounds fair :

The only thing I can come up with is to play your current ISP to get better pricing. And this would only work with Bell. Bell would call you the next day after 3rd party installation and ask you to cancel to get a better price.

Bell calls the customer the DAY the order is issued, and then at regular intervals up until the conversion date.

We tell the customer "don't cancel your Bell service before the switch, or you'll lose your number"

Bell asks the customer "are you canceling your Bell service? No? OK, we'll cancel your request to change to a new provider. .

We then have to re-authorize the transfer, which adds more time, more paperwork etc.

We advise the customers - if Bell calls, don't answer, or just hang up on them without saying ANYTHING, because anything you say can de-rail the transfer process.

To add insult to injury, if Bell does manage to "winback" a customer before migration, they whack us with an order cancellation charge of around $68.00.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


hm

@videotron.ca
said by HeadSpinning:

To add insult to injury, if Bell does manage to "winback" a customer before migration, they whack us with an order cancellation charge of around $68.00.

LOL
Have a link to the winback rules BTW? Or would that only be applicable for phone? I no longer recall. Been a few years since I recall updates to the winback rules and I seem to recall it was phone only. I seem to recall the rules were last updated when Bell filed that people who leave Bell phone should ask them first. IN other words, you couldn't leave Bell phone w/o first calling them to discuss it. CRTC struck it down, thank god.

I find it ridiculous that CNOC (an industry group serving the interests of the industry indie's) doesn't file w/ the CRTC to protect their members from this predatory practice that serves only to enrich Bell and harm indie's.

CNOC seems reactionary only. Like firemen only reacting to put out fires instead of being on the ball to prevent them. I don't think I care much for CNOC. I find them sitting on their asses doing nothing and only reacting.


memories

@videotron.ca
reply to HeadSpinning
said by HeadSpinning:

Bell calls the customer the DAY the order is issued, and then at regular intervals up until the conversion date.

BTW, I had a Bell VP call and give me shit when I dumped them. I kid you not.


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
said by memories :

BTW, I had an Indian Call Center employee pretending to be a Bell VP call and give me shit when I dumped them. I kid you not.

Fixed that for you.

Mike

scorpido
Premium
join:2009-11-02
New Hamburg, ON
kudos:1
reply to MFido
@lawrence171

I wasn't making a argument, it was a fact. My comments I am sure reflect what most customers who have had actual real issues and then do not get the refund they deserve. Your business won't go far if you blame everyone else. Even if the issue was caused by someone else on behalf of you. I order DSL service from TSI and Bell screws up the install or doesn't show up and I waste a day from work, I don't care what the name on the van is, I ordered service from TSI so TSI should take ownership of the problem and eat the cost of their contractor (in this case Bell). Insurance is a different business so apples and oranges. And with response to your "and arguments like yours is both self-fish and detrimental to customer and businesses." I don't know what kind of business your in but due to TSI blaming Bell and the customer in the first place and not eating the cost is what caused this thread in the first place..so please use your apparent great wisdom and explain to me how my comments are selfish and detrimental? This is a ever growing issue with TSI.

@Headspinning

With regards to yours I wouldn't provide a refund as it was clear the customer was just screwing around.

scorpido
Premium
join:2009-11-02
New Hamburg, ON
kudos:1
reply to MFido
Changing of their minds is a different story, I agree that TSI shouldn't provide a refund if the customer changed his mind. But if the install experience is such a screw up by Bell or Rogers that the customer changes their mind then yes TSI should eat that cost and try to get it back from Bell or Rogers for screwing up the install. It's part of taking ownership for your customers. Again, I ordered service from TSI, it doesn't matter what the name on the van says. If the install is screwed up then it is TSI issue. If it was a bell or rogers issue then we would call them. Also known as contractor ownership. If a contractor is there on your behalf, your responsible for any issues and trying to get any money out of the contractor after giving you customer compensation for whatever the issue is. My god is this what customer service is come down to? Such a sad state of affairs when everyone tries to pass the buck.

scorpido
Premium
join:2009-11-02
New Hamburg, ON
kudos:1
reply to dfs4
I think to solve this whole issue Bell needs to design a system with real-time updates and should contact a dedicated number to the indie isp to confirm that the modem is online and that the circuity is proper. Get rid of this midnight crap before a repair order can be issued. The whole dsl ordering system is a joke and it costs everyone money.

lawrence171
Evilly Yours - Evilness

join:2001-12-24
Canada
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to scorpido
said by scorpido:

I wasn't making a argument, it was a fact. My comments I am sure reflect what most customers who have had actual real issues and then do not get the refund they deserve. Your business won't go far if you blame everyone else. Even if the issue was caused by someone else on behalf of you. I order DSL service from TSI and Bell screws up the install or doesn't show up and I waste a day from work, I don't care what the name on the van is, I ordered service from TSI so TSI should take ownership of the problem and eat the cost of their contractor (in this case Bell). Insurance is a different business so apples and oranges. And with response to your "and arguments like yours is both self-fish and detrimental to customer and businesses." I don't know what kind of business your in but due to TSI blaming Bell and the customer in the first place and not eating the cost is what caused this thread in the first place..so please use your apparent great wisdom and explain to me how my comments are selfish and detrimental? This is a ever growing issue with TSI.

Drop the condescending tone.

Your argument was essentially that it is the cost of doing business, and one should not whine about it. This is where the insurance example applies - if the cost of doing business goes up, what would a business do?

Arguments like yours are detrimental because you are defending exceptionally difficult customers who drive up cost for everyone. From the looks of the conversation, TSI acted very much in good faith in their attempt to rectify the issue, and the customer has chosen to be difficult.
--
What I used to be I no longer am... God, why can't you freeze time for my sake?


hm

@videotron.ca
said by lawrence171:

Drop the condescending tone.

Your argument was essentially that it is the cost of doing business, and one should not whine about it. ...

Arguments like yours are detrimental because you are defending exceptionally difficult customers who drive up cost for everyone.

He isn't wrong at all. HeadSpinning even made the case.

What this is is a failure in the way winback (or other) works.

It is indeed the price of doing business and to say otherwise is wrong.

If TSI Or anyone else has a problem with it, then it's up to them to go to the CRTC and bring these charges up. Otherwise they will continue to eat the costs at the expense of us, the beloved customer.

As stated above, you would think CNOC (ie all the so-called indie's) would bring this up. But no. They are just as happy taking peoples money instead of raising the issue (people are easy to push over), and they are saying screw you we are keeping your money and giving the people the finger.

This isn't exactly pro-customer. It's anti-customer.

scorpido
Premium
join:2009-11-02
New Hamburg, ON
kudos:1
reply to lawrence171
Wow you really have taken this personally. I didn't have a condescending tone and even if I did you are in no position to comment about it so keep your unneeded remarks to yourself as they only show that you take things to personally to be in this thread. If a customer is on purpose trying to cause head aches and waste time and money yeah feed them to the crows. But if a customer has a legit issue then it is the cost of business to accept responsibility and refund the customer no matter if the money will be re-coupe or not. My personal 2 cents worth is that your too close to this issue to be able to offer a valid opinion and that you should retire from posting in this thread.
The whole system needs to be revamped I think

Dunlop

join:2011-07-13
kudos:2
reply to dfs4
So the OP has not written anything in about a week, even longer where had had a post that was more than a sentence long.

Any particular reason outside of the inflammatory title that this thread is getting bumped?

scorpido
Premium
join:2009-11-02
New Hamburg, ON
kudos:1
I'm good to let the thread die out.


Upsidedown

@utoronto.ca
reply to TSI Marc
If TSI had to dig back till 2009 to look for a reason to not refund the guy, then I'd say Teksavvy is past the point of no return in terms of customer service.

"Given its the same location, he clearly has to know that somebody will need access to the utility room", can you confirm that with a recording? Can you be 100% sure that he knows? How do you know if he remembers?

'We're not going to refund you this time for the botched install because you cancelled in the past' is not going to end well. Try using that as a defense when the CCTS complaint/ charge back comes in.

You can say what you want Marc, but when you need to attack the customer to infer that TSI didn't screw up... Well...


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to Dunlop
said by Dunlop:

Any particular reason outside of the inflammatory title that this thread is getting bumped?

Two sides to the coin.

If people can only try and shut others up and show only one side, what good is a forum? Better of to create only a webpage saying TSI is god. Rest be damned.

Nothing inflammatory about it this whole thing. Actually it opened eyes on at least one key issue many don't know about. And that would be Bell winback phone-drones are actually being paid (indirectly) by the likes of TSI.

I never knew this. Did you?

Is it right?

Will TSI & CNOC allow it to continue?

Only two sets of people being hurt here. A) the TSI's out there and the beloved customer. Bell is laughing all the way to the bank in situations like this.

In regards to the person in question he can always reply back that what he said is indeed true and counter what Marc said, but hasn't. So we can let that rest. But as you have seen, there are more issues and situations which harm (and financially harm) everyone... Except for Bell.

Worth it? Yup. HeadSpinning brought something up I never thought of, and likely for others as well, which is valid. It opens eyes. But some people can't see past the tip of their nose.

A couple of things came out of this topic actually. And it's good that people know the issues on both sides.

Trying to shut it down does nothing except for hiding from it.


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

If TSI had to dig back till 2009 to look for a reason to not refund the guy, then I'd say Teksavvy is past the point of no return in terms of customer service.

"Given its the same location, he clearly has to know that somebody will need access to the utility room", can you confirm that with a recording? Can you be 100% sure that he knows? How do you know if he remembers?

'We're not going to refund you this time for the botched install because you cancelled in the past' is not going to end well. Try using that as a defense when the CCTS complaint/ charge back comes in.

You can say what you want Marc, but when you need to attack the customer to infer that TSI didn't screw up... Well...

Not sure where I'm inferring anything. I'm not blaming anybody. I'm flat out saying - We're being used. I see a pattern of abuse. We've already eaten losses in the past with this customer. It wasn't difficult to find.. The only reason we looked into it is because he said he had signed up with us before.

It's simple... I don't like being used. I don't think that's right. And I don't want others to get the idea that they can do that to us and get away with it.

Once bitten twice shy.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


TSI Pierre
Baby, Wanna see what 300Gigs looks like?
Premium
join:2011-09-23
Chatham, ON
+1

Dunlop

join:2011-07-13
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Bell Fibe
reply to hm
said by hm :

said by Dunlop:

Any particular reason outside of the inflammatory title that this thread is getting bumped?

Two sides to the coin.

If people can only try and shut others up and show only one side, what good is a forum? Better of to create only a webpage saying TSI is god. Rest be damned.

I'm saying start a new thread with issues and not piggyback off of this one because it is fun causing drama. Nobody is asking anyone to shut up.

TSI has been extremely open with this particular thread


TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
kudos:3
reply to dfs4
I don't know the OP but the idea he is using someone makes no sense to me. Maybe in the past tek was a bad experience but he hoped it changed and tried again. I've done that before.

what would he get out of using tek?

scorpido
Premium
join:2009-11-02
New Hamburg, ON
kudos:1
Good question, how does the customer get any benefit from ordering then cancelling?


Upsidedown

@utoronto.ca
reply to TOPDAWG
+1, if he cancelled AFTER the service was installed and demanded the refund, then he'd be using Tek (say, to condition his copper) and abusing the company.

Demanding refund post bad install cant be classified as abuse, its quite a leap to conclude that. Nor did Marc provide a reason for why the OP cancelled last time and thus assuming abuse is just also quite a leap. So this "pattern of abuse" doesn't really hold up.

Although, I do find Marc's strategy/approach quite interesting. Quite... Lawyer-esque...



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

LOL... lawyers would advise me to stay very far away from this place.

I just haven't listened to all of the calls myself yet.. this is the run down to date:

Timetable
11/1/2012 Order Placed
11/7/2012 Order Confirmed for 11/10/2012
11/8/2012 Customer called in to confirm appointment
11/10/2012 Customer calls in to advise that the Telco room is locked. Will need to be rescheduled
11/10/2012 Order Rescheduled
11/12/2012 Reschedule Confirmed for 11/13/2012
11/12/2012 Customer wants to cancel. Advised that if he cancels now, no refund
11/14/2012 Order Cancelled

waiting to confirm that the install was done on the 13th...

I just got a copy of the initial call to listen too right now but I don't have time to listen to it today.

I'm also asking my team to contact CCTS to get their opinion.

If there's something to learn here.. I'm game to chase it down. What I've seen so far and the last call from the 12th that I listened to.. tells me this is a case where a retention team from an incumbent offered an attractive deal and as a result we're on the hook for costs.. the OP called back two days later and the day prior to the install to cancel.. plus the prior history and the fact that we've already extended good will the first go around..

It's all fine to take the other deal.. we just shouldn't be on the hook for the change of mind.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy

MFido

join:2012-10-19
kudos:2
Totally agree with you Marc.

For the others who are "the forum's smarts" hiding after an anonymous name ... let them run their own business and eat the "cost of doing business" with customers changing their minds ...

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4

1 edit
reply to hm
said by hm :

[

CNOC seems reactionary only. Like firemen only reacting to put out fires instead of being on the ball to prevent them. I don't think I care much for CNOC. I find them sitting on their asses doing nothing and only reacting.

Pretty much.
The CRTC is currently soliciting opinions for a cellular "code of conduct".

In a similar vein, CNOC should be WRITING their own suggested "code of conduct" for incumbents and present that to the CRTC for comments from the CRTC and incumbents. Maybe then the crap can stop.

Maybe #1 on the list should be:

1a) The instant an order comes in from an ISP to 'port' DSL service from a WTN or dry loop, the losing ISP is enjoined from soliciting the customer for 'win-back' for a period of 1 year. This includes offering discounts and inducements on any other services offered by the losing ISP.
1b) Failure of either ISP to do so results in a penalty of $x, payable to the other ISP.
1c) If the customer rescinds the port prior to installation/cutover date, the retaining ISP is responsible to all costs incurred by the ISP who has just lost the business, to a maximum of the tariffed (or otherwise) fee for installation.
1d) Accounts for all matter above are to be settled monthly on a net basis between the parties. Failure to do so will result in a 10% penalty added to the GROSS (before netting) amount payable by the offending party.
Expand your moderator at work


nothing

@videotron.ca
reply to Upsidedown

Re: Teksavvy sucks

said by TOPDAWG:

what would he get out of using tek?

Nothing. Not even a so called "line condition". People can only pull this with Bell, as detailed here: »Re: Teksavvy sucks

This does *not* apply to cable. And this person ordered cable to my understanding.

So there is really no motive.

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
reply to scorpido
said by scorpido:

@Headspinning

With regards to yours I wouldn't provide a refund as it was clear the customer was just screwing around.

We never collected a dime from the customer. That was supposed to happen at the install.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net