DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6
2 edits | reply to hm
Re: CRTC Silencing Voices. said by hm :....They [CRTC] are indeed silencing voices the way they are operating and continue to operate, and then blame it all on "technical glitches".
How many years worth of "technical glitches" is required before they do something and stop losing communications?
If JF wrote nothing about them losing GCKey submissions, as Andy seemed to imply, then chances are it would never be shown and he would have been silenced.
And that's the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There are more issues going on than just this that are silencing people.
For example, they did away with incumbents CC'ing the interested parties. So if a big telco makes a rebuttal (or whatever) JF doesn't get to know about it, have time to think about it, write about it, or crowd-source it.
Why? Because the CRTC is taking like a week to even put submissions up on their broken website which in turn loses time to formulate a reply (which they then conveniently lose).
People have to literally wait till the CRTC thinks about when you should know about a Bell submission, rebuttal, or reply.
The whole thing stinks and it silences people.
If what you say above is even PARTIALLY true, then it sounds like something about which Industry Canada ought to care.
Unfortunately, it felt like this thread was getting to be more about JF himself than about the loss/ignoring of his recent submissions by the CRTC being an example of a larger malaise. |
|
 hm
@videotron.ca | said by Davesnothere:Unfortunately, it felt like this thread was getting to be more about JF himself than about the loss/ignoring of his recent submissions by the CRTC being an example of a larger malaise.
I don't see anything "unfortunate". He does a heck of a job, and maybe now you can see and have an appreciation for how demoralizing and frustrating it can get with they way they have chosen to operate and continue to maintain a broken government website like this as if there is no problem. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 | reply to Plus One
Looks like they've found some submissions from March 25th that weren't posted til today..
MTS & Primus.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply to hm
said by hm :I don't see anything "unfortunate". He does a heck of a job, and maybe now you can see and have an appreciation for how demoralizing and frustrating it can get with they way they have chosen to operate and continue to maintain a broken government website like this as if there is no problem.
Agreed completely, but I'm simply saying that they are two separate (though in this case overlapping) issues. |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:Looks like they've found some submissions from March 25th that weren't posted til today..
MTS & Primus.
So just how big of a fish CAN the CRTC ignore ?
Hmmmm.... |
|
|
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to Davesnothere
said by Davesnothere:Agreed completely, but I'm simply saying that they are two separate (though in this case overlapping) issues.
1-problem + 1-problem + 1-problem + 1-problem.. +... = compounded maddening for the average joe. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to resa1983
said by resa1983:Looks like they've found some submissions from March 25th that weren't posted til today..
MTS & Primus.
Nice eh. This also happened to JF once before where they lost his submission then just quietly added it to the proceeding going on w/o telling anyone. No notice to anyone. Nothing. So no one knows about it and thus goes ignored. That is, unless all parties to a proceeding purposely look for missing communications to the communications regulator that mysteriously get added a week or two after the fact...
In other words, he got silenced.
Do you think this time the communications regulator will communicate their mishandling of yet another filing? They haven't to date that I'm aware of. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| There's still time.. They extended the file date to April 5th. They'll need to get JF's submission up by noonish on the 5th and send out the email to everyone to tell them they're pushing it back, again.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
| Time for a Royal Commission to investigate the CRTC!!! |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to Plus One
Really no need.
The reasoning behind the problems should be resolved in the next few weeks.
*coughs*
Relevant: »2denise.optimalworkshop.com/tree···nglish-1
Do that survey.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
DavesnothereNo-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
join:2009-06-15
START&Cogeco
kudos:6 | reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:Time for a Royal Commission to investigate the CRTC!!!
Either that, or a Spanish Inquisition.  |
|
| said by Davesnothere:said by MaynardKrebs:Time for a Royal Commission to investigate the CRTC!!!
Either that, or a Spanish Inquisition. I'm all for a 'Spanish Inquisition' - of either the 1,400-1,500's version or the Monty Python version. Both would be remarkably more effective than the current CRTC methodology. |
|
| reply to Davesnothere
dupe post removed |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | reply to hm
Here is another oddity.
There is the submission filed by MTS and which the CRTC subsequently lost, as Ressa pointed out above.
So both JF and MTS submissions are not seen by anyone. CRTC doesn't post them online. No one knows they filed unless they CC'd everyone that is party to the proceeding (which is no longer a requirement).
Yet, MTS still got the CRTC notices (ie. the CRTC still CC'd them) while at the same time JF got ignored as if he didn't exist. See the PDF uploaded by Ressa here, » Re: CRTC 2013-80 Optional Upstream Speeds, DSL Modem Cert.
More technical problems I guess. A new and never before seen technical problem that shuts-up only JF and silences him. Or maybe they just automatically reject Quebec IP's and submissions |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| They still have til noonish on the 5th to send emails out about another extension, and to post JF's submission.
If nothing comes, JF goes batshit (for which I'd support), and I'll be trying to find a way to get his submission on the record.. Even if that means filing his intervention as 'evidence' for my comments. :P
Seriously, it is bullshit.. Not enough people due to upcoming things (which frankly, will be worth all the problems right now), fine.. Temporarily reassign an intern to help someone & train them quickly.. There's no reason for screwing up processes like this.
EDIT: Looks like JF's submission was added to 2013-79 today along with MTS's:
»services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/ListeInt···c&Lang=e
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
| reply to resa1983
Like everything else to do with the CRTC's broken website, that survey wouldn't work in my browser. Had to switch to IE for it to function. |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by Shrug :Like everything else to do with the CRTC's broken website, that survey wouldn't work in my browser. Had to switch to IE for it to function. Worked in Firefox for me. Also, not hosted by CRTC. :P
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | JF's submission was quietly added. No notice went out that I know of. Likely no one knows it was added. So it's a good thinkg JF CC's people (which is no longer a requirement).
In addition to his submission, the CRTC F'd up yet again.
The two letters to John Traversy of the CRTC to touch on the CRTC website and deadline issues, and which are not part of the file but rather private communications to the CRTC guy, was also added to the public file.
Do you think the CRTC makes errors when Bell submits private communications not part of the public file? Like when they give one doc that is #### and the other containing no ####?
Seems to me that it's becoming very clear that there are rules for the big telco and the public, who they consider pee-ons and unimportant. |
|
hm
@videotron.ca | To add...
No date change given due to their screw-ups.
JF still did not receive any CRTC notice about the original date change. His sole source of even knowing about and finding out there was a date change was by Resa who uploaded it to this site. The CRTC shut him up and out (and posted private communications). |
|
resa1983Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:7 Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to Plus One
Further extension for 2013-80, for modem certification & optional upstream.
April 11th 2013
And it was sent to JF, per the cc list.
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP |
|
