dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3488
share rss forum feed


oh la la

@videotron.ca
reply to twizlar

Re: Beware of BroadLine Networks

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.


twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
kudos:3
reply to oh la la

said by oh la la :

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?

While we do provide internet connectivity, it isn't through an incumbent and it isn't for residential/small business. We were planning on moving in to the residential and small business space prior to the entire UBB fiasco but it doesn't make any sense now.

More than likely, yes they simply took a look at our site and assumed so. Either way, we don't purchase that type of service from anyone so any threat of disconnection is somewhat useless in this case.
--
Broadline Networks Inc.

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

It would be like Transport Canada threatening to revoke the Fedex air cargo license because they think Fedex offers flying lessons to the general public.



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

No, it's even more removed like that. It would be like Transport Canada threating to revoke the Fedex submarine cargo license because they think that Fedex is offering swimming lessons to the general public.

The point being that Broadline both doesn't have anything the CRTC or CCTS can revoke (because they don't rely on incumbents) and don't offer services to the general public, like Fedex neither operates submarines nor offers swimming lessons to the general public.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



oh la la

@videotron.ca
reply to Gone

said by Gone:

He just said he does not provide any services...

I saw that. The posts you see now, some were written a minute after Andy first posted (about 2.5 hrs ago). So you get some posts of of time-whack. Such are non-reg'd posts *shrug*. If you didn't know, then now you know. But it's always funny to see someone harp on that. Sometimes it leads to giggles.

Anyhow, back on Feb 19 it did state they sold internet connectivity. I saw it and even posted that here. Could just have been a referral thing for all we know. This is now making the CCTS look bad.


oh la la

@videotron.ca
reply to twizlar

said by twizlar:

said by oh la la :

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?

...

More than likely, yes they simply took a look at our site and assumed so. Either way, we don't purchase that type of service from anyone so any threat of disconnection is somewhat useless in this case.

I think this to be the crux of the whole thing. Instead of the merits of the complaint versus the services you actually provide(d), it's very possible they jumped the gun based solely on what was advertized on your webpage, and nothing else.

The CCTS's reply to this is going to be funny. They should be red-faced. Bet they are reading this now and scrambling to already make up a reply

Not the brightest tools in the shed over there.

The first year the CCTS existed they were supposed to make their rulings public. When they didn't I wrote to them and asked for all their rulings. They replied to me, "Fill out the complaint form to get the answer". I replied back, "So you want me to file a complaint about the CCTS to the CCTS on the telecom complaint form? OK I will". I had a reply 2 minutes later from some director apologizing saying the people who respond to inquiries are not the brightest.

This seems like another not to bright jump the gun moment.

I fully expect them to bring up what your page stated at the time while skirting the issue/merit of the actual complaint.


oh la la

@videotron.ca
reply to twizlar

twizlar, on a final note, I hope you file for cost awards against the CCTS (if you can).



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

said by oh la la :

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?

Indeed. The originator of this thread seems to have jumped the gun, too.


twizlar
I dont think so.
Premium
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON
kudos:3
reply to oh la la

Thankfully it hasn't taken up any time so far as we have actively been ignoring them completely.
--
Broadline Networks Inc.



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to hm

I'm tempted to get popcorn... I'm looking forward to seeing what the CRTC does as they realize that Broadline is outside of their jurisdiction and that there aren't any penalties they can impose.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



hm

@videotron.ca

said by Guspaz:

I'm tempted to get popcorn... I'm looking forward to seeing what the CRTC does as they realize that Broadline is outside of their jurisdiction and that there aren't any penalties they can impose.

Definitely took a funny turn. I wonder if they are even going to bother replying? I think I would. But what would you write?

To Whom it may concern.

CCTS is wrong. We do not provide services that fall under the mandate of the CCTS. We have lost enough time reading their frivolous claims, and even more time responding to this kangaroo court.

Cost claims: Since we are forced to submit a reply, we kindly seek 200$ (the cost of our time wasted thus far).

Have a great day,

Broadline

Then the CCTS may counter based on what their webpage stated, then they can re-respond stating it never materialized due to the CRTC mishandling of UBB, thus exempt to join this mafia controlled mickey mouse CCTS. Cost claims: 300$ now for wasting more of our time.

Have a nice day.

Broadline

Yeah they can potentially have a good time in their reply.

df909

join:2013-03-05
Canada
reply to twizlar

said by twizlar:

While we do provide internet connectivity, it isn't through an incumbent and it isn't for residential/small business.

If Atria networks is one of your main providers as well as where you are leasing datacenter space then yes you are going through an incumbent.

Rogers acquired Atria 2 years ago.


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

said by df909:

said by twizlar:

While we do provide internet connectivity, it isn't through an incumbent and it isn't for residential/small business.

If Atria networks is one of your main providers as well as where you are leasing datacenter space then yes you are going through an incumbent.

Rogers acquired Atria 2 years ago.

Heh, we only use them for backhaul/vlans, which isn't regulated by the CRTC. I meant that our internet services do not run via incumbent services such as GAS or TPIA.
--
Broadline Networks Inc.


Ragnor

@5.34.244.x
reply to hm

According to the internet wayback archieve, Broadline Networks has been selling Bell and Telus residential internet since 2008. May have been longer. For Cable I only noticed that they stated they do Shaw.

It is odd that they now state that they have been only looking at the idea of selling residential access, when in fact they have been for 5 years or more. And only now removed it when they got the CRTC threat. 5 or more years after the fact.

Broadline is not being all that honest here. But they removed their lie, or reseller program that has been in place for 5 years or more now that the heat is on.

All very interesting. Maybe this ccts is actually doing people there some good by forcing the hand of not so honest players?



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

said by Ragnor :

According to the internet wayback archieve, Broadline Networks has been selling Bell and Telus residential internet since 2008. May have been longer. For Cable I only noticed that they stated they do Shaw.

It is odd that they now state that they have been only looking at the idea of selling residential access, when in fact they have been for 5 years or more. And only now removed it when they got the CRTC threat. 5 or more years after the fact.

Broadline is not being all that honest here. But they removed their lie, or reseller program that has been in place for 5 years or more now that the heat is on.

All very interesting. Maybe this ccts is actually doing people there some good by forcing the hand of not so honest players?

As I stated before, we were attempting to move in to the wholesale market for both DSL and Cable, however the UBB issues as well as pricing on the whole just didn't make sense for us.

Regardless of opinion or perception, we are not under the mandate of the ccts or the crtc.
--
Broadline Networks Inc.

df909

join:2013-03-05
Canada
reply to twizlar

said by twizlar:

Heh, we only use them for backhaul/vlans, which isn't regulated by the CRTC. I meant that our internet services do not run via incumbent services such as GAS or TPIA.

Perhaps you're misinformed about the scope of the CCTS? By reading their FAQ it's clear that unregulated services are within their jurisdiction:

quote:
3. Are there some telecom complaints you can’t deal with?

Yes. We cannot accept complaints about services that are regulated by the CRTC.


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

said by df909:

said by twizlar:

Heh, we only use them for backhaul/vlans, which isn't regulated by the CRTC. I meant that our internet services do not run via incumbent services such as GAS or TPIA.

Perhaps you're misinformed about the scope of the CCTS? By reading their FAQ it's clear that unregulated services are within their jurisdiction:

quote:
3. Are there some telecom complaints you can’t deal with?

Yes. We cannot accept complaints about services that are regulated by the CRTC.

Regulated services, meaning enforceable disconnections by the CRTC.
--
Broadline Networks Inc.

df909

join:2013-03-05
Canada
reply to Ragnor

said by Ragnor :

It is odd that they now state that they have been only looking at the idea of selling residential access, when in fact they have been for 5 years or more. And only now removed it when they got the CRTC threat. 5 or more years after the fact.

Broadline is not being all that honest here. But they removed their lie, or reseller program that has been in place for 5 years or more now that the heat is on.

Actually they haven't taken down their site yet. »www.broadlinedsl.com/


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to hm

You'd think the PHP errors, if not the blank pages, would indicate that site isn't for an active service.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



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

said by Guspaz:

You'd think the PHP errors, if not the blank pages, would indicate that site isn't for an active service.

Indeed. Having information on a website means nothing if we aren't actually offering the service. Either way its down now, so everyone should be happy!
--
Broadline Networks Inc.

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

said by twizlar:

Thankfully it hasn't taken up any time so far as we have actively been ignoring them completely.

You may with to point the CCTS to this thread to see how well we can ignore matters

»IGNORE this thread