dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3563
share rss forum feed


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to hm

Re: Beware of BroadLine Networks

Yeah looked into to it quickly, CRTC states that as a condition of being allowed to resell or provide telecommunications service the company must join within 5 days of being notified by the CCTS that they have a complaint and to join.

So worse case:
CRTC's Enforcement Branch will force a disconnection or halt to services (or similar) of BroadLine w/ whoever they resell from.


twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
kudos:3
reply to hm
At the end of the day both the CCTS and CRTC are toothless bodies and can't really do anything to anyone that doesn't wish to join them.
--
Broadline Networks Inc.


hm

@videotron.ca
said by twizlar:

At the end of the day both the CCTS and CRTC are toothless bodies and can't really do anything to anyone that doesn't wish to join them.

Yeah, I seem to recall a mention of this during the wireless proceedings when they spoke. But only caught it fast and it didn't go into much detail. Basically, what I understood from it, was that the "name & Shame" page was the extent of their enforcement. But I'm not 100% sure. Something about legalities... (beyound me).

Yet the code also shows the threat of disconnection (could be all talk for all I know).

So that is why I stated, in a way, it would be interesting to see this go the length with CRTC Enforcement. But could their legalese and mumbo-jumbo end up costing you more in the end?

HeadSpinning
MNSi Internet

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

At the end of the day both the CCTS and CRTC are toothless bodies and can't really do anything to anyone that doesn't wish to join them.

The CRTC isn't toothless. Its just the only penalties they have at their disposal are very extreme, so they're often not used.
--
MNSi Internet - »www.mnsi.net


hm

@videotron.ca
said by HeadSpinning:

said by twizlar:

At the end of the day both the CCTS and CRTC are toothless bodies and can't really do anything to anyone that doesn't wish to join them.

The CRTC isn't toothless. Its just the only penalties they have at their disposal are very extreme, so they're often not used.

Yeah I gave it a fast once over.
The CCTS is indeed toothless and want it to remain that way (per their CRTC presentation last week). They stated if they have to do any enforcement then they won't get cooperation from the Big Telco's in their job. Their job is to make both the Telco and customer happy.

So the extent of CCTS enforcement is the "Name and Shame" webpage they have, in which they named and shamed BroadLine Networks.

CRTC does all enforcement per the code (which is how the CCTS wants it to stay).

But the only thing I saw from the CRTC was a threat of disconnection of a reseller for not joining.

Sure will be interesting to see this one play out.

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2
I guarantee you're the only one watching it. *

*not a guarantee


hm

@videotron.ca
said by Samgee:

I guarantee you're the only one watching it. *

*not a guarantee

I can guarantee you, as soon as it makes it way to an enforcement decision and then on their webpage in the daily releases, everyone will know*.

*Guaranteed.
Expand your moderator at work


agtle

@teksavvy.com
reply to hm

Re: Beware of BroadLine Networks

While I applaud the sentiments expressed about the true value of CCTS, looking at it from a customer service point of view - and a business reputation point of view - just join and be done with it, kill this thread and get your name off their page. Use Bell, Telus, Rogers, etc. complaint responses as a template (say little and settle nothing, doesn't seem to matter to ccts). PO'd customers get the satisfaction in complaining to an outside body (that to the layperson seems like "the government") and you don't have a multi-page dslreports thread indexed under the company name in google.

Bottom line, it does more immediate harm to the business (impossible to put a dollar figure on) than the potential good that may someday come from standing up to their rules.

Modern day government-backed protection racket, absolutely.


zacron
Premium
join:2008-11-26
canada
Why should He have to spend such a sum of money (which while may be a drop in the bucket) when he could do useful things like maybe Pay himself a living wage or upgrade one of his towers or donate to charity, maybe even sponsor part of a public space build.

Z
--
"Recognize, Realize, and Repent"


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to agtle
I'm going to bite. Who cares if his company is on the CCTS site, hell I never think to think to look there for anything. And they really are similar to the BBB, charging companies upfront and pretending to protect consumers, which all they really do is give small refunds at their own made up criteria.

They apparently can't enforce anything or punish companies who don't correct errors.


twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
kudos:3
said by mlerner:

I'm going to bite. Who cares if his company is on the CCTS site, hell I never think to think to look there for anything. And they really are similar to the BBB, charging companies upfront and pretending to protect consumers, which all they really do is give small refunds at their own made up criteria.

They apparently can't enforce anything or punish companies who don't correct errors.

That is pretty much my feeling as well. As a consumer I've never cared about them and no one I've ever dealt with has ever mentioned them so as far as I am concerned it is a waste of time/resources for no benefit.
--
Broadline Networks Inc.


hm

@videotron.ca
said by twizlar:

As a consumer I've never cared about them and no one I've ever dealt with has ever mentioned them so as far as I am concerned it is a waste of time/resources for no benefit.

I don't think many people care about them. It's a sham service. But for the masses it's a place to complain about a service-providers service, or lack of.

scorpido
Premium
join:2009-11-02
New Hamburg, ON
kudos:1
Might at least look good to join. It Would cut this theard off at the knees


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1
reply to hm
Show Cause proceeding to be held for the 6 companies that havent joined

»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2013/2013-133.htm


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
Which according to Broadline, the complaint they got isn't even in the CRTC's regulatory jurisdiction so I'm sure they'll throw out that case.

As for the others, who cares. Unless someone comes forward I'm sure they won't try to enforce it, if they even have the power to do so.

df909

join:2013-03-05
Canada
reply to andyb
People thought the CRTC/CCTS were toothless? Not exactly true..

quote:
12. The Commission hereby initiates a proceeding to show cause why the Commission should not

find that the six TSPs have failed to comply with the CCTS participation requirement;
order disconnection of the six TSPs’ telecommunications services for failure to comply with the CCTS participation requirement; and
issue a mandatory order pursuant to section 51 of the Act with respect to the failure of each of the six TSPs to submit information to the Commission as required by subsection 37(2) of the Act, and register such order with the Federal Court pursuant to section 63 of the Act.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
They are toothless unless they actually do it. They've threatened that probably 100's of times over the years but never actually did it since it would also require the co-operation of the ISP or telecom provider.


twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
kudos:3
said by mlerner:

They are toothless unless they actually do it. They've threatened that probably 100's of times over the years but never actually did it since it would also require the co-operation of the ISP or telecom provider.

Which will never happen, nor would it be legal.
--
Broadline Networks Inc.


oh la la

@videotron.ca
said by twizlar:

said by mlerner:

They are toothless unless they actually do it. They've threatened that probably 100's of times over the years but never actually did it since it would also require the co-operation of the ISP or telecom provider.

Which will never happen, nor would it be legal.

Which would require one of these resellers to go to fed court to overturn a few CRTC decision's:
1) the forced disconnect
2) the fed regulated and forced contractual requirement of the incumbents to have this clause in all agreements/contracts as a condition of reselling/wholesaling.
3) Mandatory joining to the CCTS

Sure would be interesting. But, again, the costs to go the length and to see this to the end in court... $$$$$

And in-between the couple of years before this came to a conclusion, you still have disconnection. Unless you sought relief via court or the CRTC to see this through to the end. $$

Doesn't seem to be an in-between when one looks at the code and its' amendments (if no error in judgement is found).


oh la la

@videotron.ca
reply to mlerner
said by mlerner:

if they even have the power to do so.

Yeah they do. Says so in the code and in this public consultation.

Whoever resells to BroadLine is now also party to this. In addition to providers not directly reselling to them. So in otherwords:
BroadLine ->their reseller(s) ->incumbent.

All are party to it.

Part of the reason for this, though I didn't notice it stated in this notice, the code requires all agreements (reselling agreements) to include a clause stating that failure to comply with the code will be a forced disconnection.

If you read it, they want to also see the reselling agreements. I suspect they will be looking for this mandatory clause, per the code, so no one can claim ignorance to it. They will also see if this mandatory clause from the incumbent is carried over to whoever is reselling to Broadline. It's supposed to be. So they will also ensure (ascertain) that resellers follow procedural code.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
reply to oh la la
said by oh la la :

And in-between the couple of years before this came to a conclusion, you still have disconnection.

It is exceedingly unlikely that if someone was appealing this through the courts that the CRTC would be able to enforce a disconnection order.


rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Acanac
reply to hm
I still fail to see the logic of a business man to allow his name to be dragged through the mud on this very renound forum and make himself (pardon the expression) look like an ass (IMHO) because he refuses to adhere to a code of conduct that he is required to do so.

Acting like a petulant child (ie pouting, whining, stomping your feet and throwing a tantrum) is no way to conduct business. There is no choice here, it is laid out in black and white, you must join and abide by their code. If you don't like that or don't agree with it, you have one choice--do not conduct business in a field that is mandated by an organization whose beliefs and rules do not coincide with your own.

Otherwise, shut up, pay your dues and work to change the system from the inside like every other business in this field. You are nothing special and you do not deserve special treatment. I would love to hear why you don't have to follow the rules while everyone else does.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
He already explained why he didn't want to join. He already explained the details of why the one single complaint that lead to the request to join was not under the purview of the CCTS and therefore should have never been allowed in the first place. I suspect he'll fight this and most likely win.

Having said all that, I completely understand where he's coming from. It appears you lack the same understanding, and just the same I really don't care he thinks what you think as you're no more special than anyone else here, either.


twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
kudos:3
reply to hm
The simple reason being, we do not provide services that fall under the scope of their mandate. We don't have a reseller/wholesaler or an incumbent providing us service/services that are under any sort of CRTC/CCTS jurisdiction.
--
Broadline Networks Inc.


oh la la

@videotron.ca
reply to andyb
Aaah good catch, Andyb, I was just writing this up... I'll post it anyhow...

The CRTC has now opened a Consultation where BroadLine Networks will have to show why they should not be disconnected by force (which, as discussed in the previous topic, is the penalty for not joining the CCTS when told to).

Apparent non-compliance by certain telecommunications service providers with the requirement to be a participant of the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services
»www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2013/2013-133.htm

BroadLine seemed to have indicated (here) that the CCTS erred in their ruling (among other things). The CCTS gave them two notices to join. The CRTC also sent Broadline one final notice to join. BroadLine ignored all notices.

BroadLine will now have to formally file by April 17 in regards this proceeding, or face possible disconnection.

Will Broadline just ignore the CRTC again?

In addition, whoever Broadline resells from is now also part of this proceeding, and must also file by April 17. Example: if Broadline is reselling Teksavvy, then Teksaavy is now part of this proceeding. In addition to Bell or Rogers if they in turn resell to Teksavvy who in turn resells to BroadLine. Why? to enforce disconnection.

Money and regulatory lawyers are now involved. Was that worth it Broadline? I hope for your sake the incumbent(s) don't file for cost awards, which they are entitled to. It will cost you more than if you had just joined the CCTS. But if they erred, then all the power to you!

The public may also file comments, which judging by the last topic might be something along the lines of, "the CCTS sucks". heh


oh la la

@videotron.ca
reply to twizlar
said by twizlar:

The simple reason being, we do not provide services that fall under the scope of their mandate. We don't have a reseller/wholsaler or an incumbent providing us service/services that are under any sort of CRTC/CCTS jurisdiction.

Well that's interesting, the last time I looked at BroadLines webpage (Feb 19th) it stated you provided internet connectivity (dsl or cable, or both. I forget). Seems that is removed now. heh

Could it be that is why the CCTS found you in scope? Based solely on what your webpage advertised and not the merits of the actual service you sold? Or did you resell for someone else and stopped due to this?


oh la la

@videotron.ca
reply to rednekcowboy
said by rednekcowboy:

I still fail to see the logic

He stated they erred (among other things). He has a right to fight. But it could end up costing him way more if the incumbents regulatory lawyers get dragged in, he loses, and then they file for cost awards (which the incumbents and the wholesalers are entitled to).

I wonder if any of the consumer associations or anti-poverty associations will involve themselves as well? They do sit on the board at the CCTS. And they always do claim cost awards.

But personally, I find it all moot anyhow. Eventually he has to join, one day. Be it now or a year from now.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by oh la la :

But personally, I find it all moot anyhow. Eventually he has to join, one day. Be it now or a year from now.

He just said he does not provide any services that fall under the mandate of the CCTS. Your assumptions, as a result, as moot.