 hm
@videotron.ca | Beware of BroadLine Networks The CCTS is taking BroadLine Networks to the CRTC for enforcement action due to compliance failure.
Just figured I'd mention it since I see a Broadline guy in these forums often enough...
Source:
»www.ccts-cprst.ca/en/complaints/···roviders |
|
|
|
 zacronPremium
join:2008-11-26
canada | I can stand behind them, I have worked with them and as far as I can tell, honest and upfront.
I don't see why this matters.
Z
--
"Recognize, Realize, and Repent" |
|
 twizlarI dont think so.Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
kudos:3 | reply to hm
The CCTS is a complete joke. They have no authority or ability to do anything other than to shuffle papers around.
They are clueless as to which services their "mandate" even includes and from reading through all of their decisions they are 100% incompetent as well.
--
Broadline Networks Inc. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | said by twizlar:The CCTS is a complete joke. They have no authority or ability to do anything other than to shuffle papers around.
They are clueless as to which services their "mandate" even includes and from reading through all of their decisions they are 100% incompetent as well.
...Says the company who is being brought before the CRTC Enforcement arm for non-compliance to consumer complaints.
Care to share with us what it's about? Or is the person who started this complaint incompetent, a complete joke with no abilities as well? |
|
 mlernerPremium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5 | reply to twizlar
said by twizlar:The CCTS is a complete joke. They have no authority or ability to do anything other than to shuffle papers around.
They are clueless as to which services their "mandate" even includes and from reading through all of their decisions they are 100% incompetent as well.
Not that I don't disagree because on one hand I think the CCTS is ineffective and I disagree with the collection of fees going to a 3rd party organization but the CRTC does have an enforcement branch and they have used it from time to time so just make sure your company is protected. |
|
zacronPremium
join:2008-11-26
canada Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to hm
How can the CCTS lodge/force the "Fee" on a Wireless Provider?
Furthermore, I am in agreement with Twizlar that they are as "useless as tits on a bull" and their fees are exorbitant.
Screw em!
--
"Recognize, Realize, and Repent" |
|
| reply to hm
The CCTS is quite effective at getting the customer what the customer was promised/should be getting.
Why wouldn't your company want to give the customer what they are paying for? Do you have something to hide? |
|
zacronPremium
join:2008-11-26
canada Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| Not at all. It's just that CCTS is retarded making an ISP pay out the nose for the first complaint...
But the consumer is ALWAYS right even when their not? No... Right you can always fuck a company with some B.S. about how you're not achieving your full 25mbps on a BELL PROVISIONED line... Sorry to break it to ya buster but it's NOT ALWAYS the IISP's fault.
So get off your friggin high horse and deal with problems by sending a letter or fax... Customer Service doesn't always have the tools available to deal with things effectively.
I will not comment further and the Mods can feel free to delete this BUT I just needed to get that off my chest.
--
"Recognize, Realize, and Repent" |
|
 GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3
·Start Communicat..
| reply to hm
said by hm :...Says the company who is being brought before the CRTC Enforcement arm for non-compliance to consumer complaints. Holy hysterics batman! You really enjoy reading into things using your own imagination and presenting your own conjecture as fact, eh? Not the first time, and unfortunately won't be the last.
The CCTS says they haven't joined. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything you say beyond that is nothing more than what I have stated above.
As someone who owns a small business myself, I can completely sympathize with a fellow owner being put into a position of having to lay out a lot of money for something with no benefit, when the operating costs are already high and the margins small enough as it is.
Seeing as how I don't know the details, I do not consider myself to be in a position to comment. You would be well served to do the same. |
|
twizlarI dont think so.Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
kudos:3 | reply to hm
I don't mind sharing details. Ccts received a complaint against us for services they absolutely have no control over (colocation and bandwidth services). They tried to say it was under their mandate because the complaining party ran voip services off of the connection.
My beef with the ccts is that they provide no added resources to the internet providers and at the end of the day they cant force anyone to do anything with their decisions.
Simply take a look at the various decisions against bell or rogers. They simply denied any wrongdoing and nothing came of it.
Overall they serve no purpose and I refuse to pay for such a waste of resources.
--
Broadline Networks Inc. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | TY for the reply Twizlar. Busting your balls seems to have made some of the kids cry here  Hope they make it through the day.
In another topic, » CCTS Annual Report, Diskace shared the range of costs for joining and the cost per complaint on page 2 of that topic here, »Re: CCTS Annual Report
"500-25 000$ + 70-350$ per complaint".
Would you mind sharing with us again what your costs would have been (if it isn't too private)? I am assuming you would be on the lowest end. 500 for membership, plus 70$ for the complaint. Or was it more? Any other costs associated with this that you can share?
Also, just to understand this fully, are you saying that you were brought to them not as an ISP, but as a co-location service? A hosting provider?
The puppets at the CRTC, have they contacted you guys yet? What type of enforcement, if any, would you be looking at? Any idea? |
|
| There also the hidden costs of paying staff your using your own time to reply to the concerns. |
|
| reply to twizlar
said by twizlar:I don't mind sharing details. Ccts received a complaint against us for services they absolutely have no control over (colocation and bandwidth services). They tried to say it was under their mandate because the complaining party ran voip services off of the connection.
Based on that approach, then the local electrical utility should be under their mandate - because it is used to run a VoIP service... Geesh...
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | said by HeadSpinning:Based on that approach, then the local electrical utility should be under their mandate - because it is used to run a VoIP service... Geesh...
They do sell internet services, so Twizlar would have to clarify what exact services this customer had. The person might have had two services from him for all we know.
But that aside...
Definition from their procedural code:
Section 1.1(k):
“Telecommunications Services Providers” means, collectively,
telecommunications services providers that provide telecommunications services to Customers in Canada and “Telecommunications Services Provider” means any one of such telecommunications services providers.
Basically, any hosting or "bandwidth service supplier" is a telecommunications provider.
Section 3 (J)
Exclusions:
Networking services
Hm, if the person only had co-locations services, I would assume this to be "networking services", thus exempt.
However, due to the new amendments to the procedural code (2 years ago I believe, or 3 as shown in this very forum), a complaint by a person against a company who provides telecom services (*which he does*) triggers an automatic mandatory joining. Regardless if the complaint is justified or not.
So regardless of the merits of the complaint, the code states he is to join because he does sell telecom services (they resell internet).
Easy as that.
So in effect he has no basis to reject forced membership to the CCTS. The procedure and process triggers auto-membership.
Just to note, I see Ebox was forced to join this past December.
Seems to me, BroadLine Networks just refuses to join because:
A) They don't have the 500$ for pay for membership once a year
B) They don't want their customers to have any recourse.
C) They are afraid of maybe paying that minimum 70$ fee for each complaint for which the CCTS is not mandated to even over-see (but the CCTS is supposed to reject these outright, so it's no cost). So this point is moot. However, the triggering of the process and procedure that mandates them to join is not moot.
So in effect BroadLine Networks (the internet provider) just refuses to join for no reason other than (as he stated):
said by twizlar:My beef with the ccts is that they provide no added resources to the internet providers and at the end of the day they cant force anyone to do anything with their decisions.
However, they provide resources and help for individuals (your customers). Plus in the case of ISP's like Acanac or Teksavvy, they show trends. Up to a company to use and correct situations within their company to prevent recurrence of the situation.
So I could take issue with the reson why you don't want in.
And as far as I can see, regardless of the complaint, you are supposed to join. Sure will be an interesting outcome if it goes all the way with CRTC enforcement. I believe (this is going by memory) they can force a situation to have you removed from providing telecom services (ie your resale of cable/DSL) to people.
Keep in mind, the situation isn't about the complaint, but rather the procedure that forces you to join based on any single complaint. You may never get another complaint again in 5 years, but now you are on the hook for 500$/year, which is peanuts.
I bet you lost more than 500$ just based on someone looking you guys up and coming across this topic, or the CCTS's "Name and Shame" section that mentions you.
Good luck fighting the CRTC enforcement division, and trying to force a re-write of CRTC code (that people seem to want) for the lousy 500$ membership fee.
I don't think you are going to win this one.
The only argument I can see is if you fight that the complaint was for a different division of your offerings which is not part of the code. But the code does not distinguish this while you run it all under a single registered company name. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | looked into it a bit more, »www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-46.htm.
The amendment a couple of years ago stated that all ISP's will become members. Just to ease the burden on the CCTS from being overwhelmed by new memberships in one shot it stated:
17. With respect to non-member TSPs, the Commission notes the concern that the CCTS could be faced with a significant administrative burden in the event it has to absorb a large number of new members at the same time. The Commission considers that this burden could be minimized, while also ensuring that all consumers can benefit from the CCTS’s services, by prioritizing membership in the CCTS to those non-member TSPs that generate customer complaints. As such, the Commission is of the view that non-member TSPs that offer services within the scope of the CCTS should become members of the CCTS within five days of the date that the CCTS notifies the TSP that the CCTS has received an in-scope complaint about it.[10]
So no matter what, you (as a reseller) will become a CCTS member no matter what. So avoiding it and going to CRTC enforcement is moot and for nothing. At the same time making you look bad by the CCTS's "Name and Shame" page.
But one thing I was wrong on up above, I stated that the complaint, regardless if it's in scope or not, triggers your membership. The paragraph I pasted here shows *only an in-scope complaint* triggers the membership process. So yeah, i guess you could fight it, but the point is moot anyhow. You would be fighting for nothing. Maybe at most saving 1 years membership fee since no matter what you have to join anyhow, as a reseller.
You are doing yourself more harm than good. And if you don't want to join, stop reselling ISP services. |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| If you read your own quoted information, it specifically says "in-scope complaint." Based on what has been posted here, it was not within the scope of the CCTS.
Whether or not it is the intention of the CRTC for every provider to become a member is irrelevant. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | said by Gone:If you read your own quoted information, it specifically says "in-scope complaint." Based on what has been posted here, it was not within the scope of the CCTS.
Whether or not it is the intention of the CRTC for every provider to become a member is irrelevant.
If and when you complete reading what I stated, posted, and linked to, it's moot anyhow, as I stated.
He is doing himself more harm than good. |
|
Samgee
join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2 | said by hm :He is doing himself more harm than good.
The absolute worst thing that the CRTC can do is make him pay the $500 and deal with CCTS, eventually. He has nothing to lose by fighting what he thinks is a waste of money.
If this is his one and only complaint, I'm sure his company will do just fine in terms of reputation. |
|
GonePremium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:3 Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
| said by Samgee:The absolute worst thing that the CRTC can do is make him pay the $500 and deal with CCTS, eventually. He has nothing to lose by fighting what he thinks is a waste of money. This.
It is only required that he join if and when he receive an in-scope complaint. This complaint, regardless of what the CCTS says, appears to be out of scope. Until that point, he has every right to fight it. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to Samgee
said by Samgee:The absolute worst thing that the CRTC can do is make him pay the $500 and deal with CCTS, eventually. He has nothing to lose by fighting what he thinks is a waste of money.
I don't know what the "worse" is. Would have to read up on it. But I seem to recall something along the lines of forcing an incumbent from stopping services to you (a forced disconnection). But I really don't recall, been a couple of years since I last read it in its entirety + the amendments.
No clue if there are any AMPs (monetary penalties) either.
But regardless, what does it accomplish? Nothing other than at most maybe saving 500$ (if there are no AMPs) from joining later rather than sooner. He has to join anyhow.
Meanwhile BroadLine Networks is on the Name & Shame webpage.
But yeah... in a way I want to see this go through right to the end to see what, if anything, the mafia over at the CRTC is going to try and force unto him. But chances are we will never get to see that part. Instead in the news section of the CCTS webpage we will see, "We would like to welcome our newest member, BroadLine Networks".
said by Samgee:If this is his one and only complaint, I'm sure his company will do just fine in terms of reputation.
And that we don't know. He does resell ISP services. Maybe this customer had BroadLine ISP services as well and it's encompassed within the complaint. We just have to take what little bit he stated here at face value.
But as an ISP not wanting to join, and the words he had to say here, I wouldn't tell anyone to go to them. If you ever had an issue and he didn't agree with you, he showed he couldn't care less about the little protection afforded to the people through the CCTS.
Also to be found within scope, thus the forced membership, there seems to be more to the story and services the customer had, rather than just a co-location. Otherwise the CCTS ruled wrong and that is why he is fighting (but again, it's moot). It's right yet moot at the same time. |
|
