dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2
share rss forum feed


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to MaynardKrebs

Re: TSI Marc - Please Amend Your Home Phone Offering

said by MaynardKrebs:

Port your Bell number to voip.ms, then port it to TSI.

 
Some folks have posted that even doing THAT will not work, if it was originally a Bell number.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
Time for a CCTS complaint then.

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
said by MaynardKrebs:

Time for a CCTS complaint then.

A complaint against who? If a company chooses not to offer a retail service, what harm has been done to the end user?
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

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

said by MaynardKrebs:

Time for a CCTS complaint then.

A complaint against who? If a company chooses not to offer a retail service, what harm has been done to the end user?

Why Bell, of course. for refusing to allow porting out of the number to the 'carrier' of the customer's choice. Unless our omnipotent CRTC has judged in their infinite wisdom that incumbents can do that.

Where's my lube when I need it?

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
said by MaynardKrebs:

Why Bell, of course. for refusing to allow porting out of the number to the 'carrier' of the customer's choice. Unless our omnipotent CRTC has judged in their infinite wisdom that incumbents can do that.

Where's my lube when I need it?

That is only when you're going from one carrier to another. In this case, since the underlying carrier is still Bell, those rules do not apply.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
said by HeadSpinning:

That is only when you're going from one carrier to another. In this case, since the underlying carrier is still Bell, those rules do not apply.

But if the user has ported out his Bell number to another provider (non bell reselling), and then wishes to go back to POTS with TSI, why is that not allowed, why is that customer punished for Bell's anti competitive nature since this number somehow belongs to Bell.
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!

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

Does Bell somehow hold 'rights' to a number in perpetuity?
ie. port to a 3rd-party for a day, 100 days, or a 1000 years and Bell still can refuse a port to TSI?

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

1 edit
reply to HeadSpinning
said by HeadSpinning:

said by MaynardKrebs:

Time for a CCTS complaint then.

A complaint against who? If a company chooses not to offer a retail service, what harm has been done to the end user?

You're right - this isn't CCTS case.
It's a case for a formal complaint/action with the CRTC

Telecommunications Act - S.C. 1993, c. 38 (Section 27)
(2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.

A 'consumer friendly' CRTC would see this as not a Bell-TSI transaction, but as a pair of transactions ..... a Bell-consumer and a consumer-TSI transaction with simply some co-ordination issues (the porting actions each of the companies must do upon instruction from the consumer - either directly from the consumer or his/her duly appointed agent, ie. the 'winning provider').

The phrase "any person" in 27(2) clearly includes the consumer being subjected to undue & unreasonable disadvantage - which is not permitted.

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

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

But if the user has ported out his Bell number to another provider (non bell reselling), and then wishes to go back to POTS with TSI, why is that not allowed, why is that customer punished for Bell's anti competitive nature since this number somehow belongs to Bell.

I'm sure if you wanted to go from another provider back to Bell, they would welcome you with open arms, but if you're going to a Bell service re-sold by another company, there other issues to be aware of.

For example, what if Bell provided an incentive to the wholesale service provider to bring them new customers or conversions from cable, but did not offer that incentive when the customer was coming from Bell? What if instead of an incentive, there were a penalty for switching Bell or previous Bell customers?

The terms of wholesale re-sold phone lines are not regulated by the CRTC. This is a commercial arrangement between Bell and the wholesale partner, and agreed to beforehand.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
said by HeadSpinning:

The terms of wholesale re-sold phone lines are not regulated by the CRTC. This is a commercial arrangement between Bell and the wholesale partner, and agreed to beforehand.

The question is then, why were they porting Bell numbers for a long time, then all of a sudden early last year, boom, stop sell, labelled as temporary, has dragged on and to me looks like its permanent.
--
F**K THE NHL. Go Blue Jays 2013!!!

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

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

Bingo.

Does Bell somehow hold 'rights' to a number in perpetuity?
ie. port to a 3rd-party for a day, 100 days, or a 1000 years and Bell still can refuse a port to TSI?

Bell can only refuse to port a number OUT from their network in some very specific circumstances (suspended service, disconnected line).

Let's be clear here - TSI is not asking for a number to be ported to TSI.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net

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

said by MaynardKrebs:

Bingo.

Does Bell somehow hold 'rights' to a number in perpetuity?
ie. port to a 3rd-party for a day, 100 days, or a 1000 years and Bell still can refuse a port to TSI?

Bell can only refuse to port a number OUT from their network in some very specific circumstances (suspended service, disconnected line).

Let's be clear here - TSI is not asking for a number to be ported to TSI.

I understand clearly - the consumer is asking TSI as his/her agent to port the number from Bell's billing system to TSI's billing system. Please re-read my post above which was edited to add Telecom Act 27(2) references.

With Blais as Chairman, we are allegedly having the CRTC place more emphasis on the consumer and the promotion of competition. This matter seems to clearly fall in that bucket.

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

join:2005-05-29
Windsor, ON
kudos:5
said by MaynardKrebs:

I understand clearly - the consumer is asking TSI as his/her agent to port the number from Bell's billing system to TSI's billing system. Please re-read my post above which was edited to add Telecom Act 27(2) references.

With Blais as Chairman, we are allegedly having the CRTC place more emphasis on the consumer and the promotion of competition. This matter seems to clearly fall in that bucket.

"Porting" in the terms of the Local Competition decision (97-8) specifically means Local Number Portability, not change of billing responsibility.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

said by HeadSpinning:

said by MaynardKrebs:

Time for a CCTS complaint then.

A complaint against who? If a company chooses not to offer a retail service, what harm has been done to the end user?

Why Bell, of course. for refusing to allow porting out of the number to the 'carrier' of the customer's choice. Unless our omnipotent CRTC has judged in their infinite wisdom that incumbents can do that.

Where's my lube when I need it?

If this is the issue i remember Marc or Gabe confirming TSI has acknowledged it's them not bell.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21

1 edit
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

Does Bell somehow hold 'rights' to a number in perpetuity?
ie. port to a 3rd-party for a day, 100 days, or a 1000 years and Bell still can refuse a port to TSI?

Bell has no obligation to offer POTs service to Teksavvy at all. Teksavvy and Bell have come to a business to business agreement. Since there is currently no government regulation controlling what that agreement can contain, Bell is able to require whatever they want in it. It is all subject to interpretation and practices on the ground of course. That's how Teksavvy was able to exceed the agreement and sign up more number ports than they were supposed to for a while.

Last time I was involved in this discussion at DSLR I suggested a waiting list:
»Re: Teksavvy - Please Stop Telling Us That POTS is Available

The result of that suggestion (or at least the next development) was that wholesalers and resellers were told they couldn't sell POTs service at all any more

Edit: here's the latest official word:
»Re: C'mon TekSavvy - Bring back your POTS offering
--
electronicsguru.ca


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

said by HeadSpinning:

....Let's be clear here - TSI is not asking for a number to be ported to TSI.

 
I understand clearly - the consumer is asking TSI as his/her agent to port the number from Bell's billing system to TSI's billing system. Please re-read my post above which was edited to add Telecom Act 27(2) references.

With Blais as Chairman, we are allegedly having the CRTC place more emphasis on the consumer and the promotion of competition.

This matter seems to clearly fall in that bucket.

 
I agree that it belongs there, but quick, hurry up and drop it, as Blais' bucket runneth over any time now !

But Mister Dreidel-Head is quite correct - We should not be calling this exercise 'Porting', as it is only an 'Accounting Reassignment' of a Bell number's billing.

If, OTOH, TSI asked for same said Bell number to be moved to their TekTalk (VoIP) service, that WOULD constitute Porting, as I understand things.

So everyone, Please PLEASE PLEASE stop referring to moving your number to TSI's Home Phone service as Porting, unless the number in question was ORIGINALLY issued by a phone provider other than Bell.