 twizlarI dont think so.
Premium Member
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON |
to oh la la
Re: Beware of BroadLine Networkssaid 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. |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
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. |
|
 GuspazGuspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC |
Guspaz
MVM
2013-Mar-18 5:55 pm
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. |
|
| |
oh la la to Gone
Anon
2013-Mar-18 6:15 pm
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 |
oh la la to twizlar
Anon
2013-Mar-18 6:48 pm
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 |
oh la la to twizlar
Anon
2013-Mar-18 6:48 pm
to twizlar
twizlar, on a final note, I hope you file for cost awards against the CCTS (if you can). |
|
 Gone
Premium Member
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON |
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.  |
|
twizlarI dont think so.
Premium Member
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON |
to oh la la
Thankfully it hasn't taken up any time so far as we have actively been ignoring them completely. |
|
GuspazGuspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC |
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. |
|
 hm
@videotron.ca |
hm
Anon
2013-Mar-19 6:37 am
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 |
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.  |
|
twizlarI dont think so.
Premium Member
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON |
twizlar
Premium Member
2013-Mar-19 9:11 am
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. |
|
| |
Ragnor to hm
Anon
2013-Mar-19 9:13 am
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? |
|
twizlarI dont think so.
Premium Member
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON |
twizlar
Premium Member
2013-Mar-19 9:23 am
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. |
|
df909
join:2013-03-05
Canada |
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.
|
|
twizlarI dont think so.
Premium Member
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON |
twizlar
Premium Member
2013-Mar-19 9:43 am
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. |
|
df909
join:2013-03-05
Canada |
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/ |
|
GuspazGuspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC |
to hm
You'd think the PHP errors, if not the blank pages, would indicate that site isn't for an active service. |
|
twizlarI dont think so.
Premium Member
join:2003-12-24
Brantford, ON |
twizlar
Premium Member
2013-Mar-19 11:18 am
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! |
|
MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
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 |
|
| |
oh la la
Anon
2013-Mar-19 2:38 pm
LOL Personally, I think we should all chip in to crowd-fund a professional comedian to write their reply. A reply about nothing, since nothing they sell is enforceable by the CCTS. This has gold written all over it. |
|
 zacron
Premium Member
join:2008-11-26
Frozen Hoth
1 edit |
to twizlar
At the end of the day, is a truly upstanding citizen. He really does go out of his way to provision services and make things happen.
I don't feel that he is dishonest nor lazy based on my PERSONAL dealings with him.
That is all I have to say.
Z |
|
GuspazGuspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC |
to hm
Why keep his name confidential, when he's quoted by name in a Globe & Mail article on this very subject? |
|
| |
oh la la
Anon
2013-Mar-19 6:11 pm
lol good catch guspaz.
Seems BroadLine isn't the one who ignored the CCTS, as the CRTC notice states. It's the other way around.
"Howard Maker, Canada’s Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, could not be immediately reached to provide reaction to Broadline’s allegation it has been “ignored” by his office."
This is getting funnier and funnier. |
|
| |
to hm
Link to article since no one posted it. » www.theglobeandmail.com/ ··· 9946424/ |
|
