O Canada! → Canadian → TekSavvy > [Cable] CRTC - CNOC Part 1 Cable Carrier Services & Update

Re: [Cable] CRTC - CNOC Part 1 Cable Carrier Services & Update

Probably get somewhat better ones from Tarzhay!

A+ for effort; I wish we had a regulatory environment where all these requests were possible. Can't see most of them succeeding, especially the QoS reporting obligations. Get ready for a blizzard of arguments by the well-lawyered incumbents about undue burden, etc.

But I think the core principle of ensuring equal treatment for TPIA customer issues as that received by direct Carrier customers has some chance of getting a bare-bones implementation.

Wow, thanks for all hard work Marc, as well the other CEOs at Start, Distributel/Acanac, CIKTel and other members of CNOC.

I found this tid bit in the first class of relief that is exciting and hopefully will be implemented:

quote:

---

To make the same tools that they use to troubleshoot their retail end-users’ connections
and cable modems available to TPIA customers;

---

quote:

---

To provide meaningful details and status updates regarding installation orders and trouble
tickets, including their causes and resolutions;

---

TypeS, I don't believe EBOX is a member of CNOC. But kudos to the contributors indeed!

Ahh so you would be right, EBOX is not a member of CNOC, my mistake. XD

»www.cnoc.ca/pages/membership_list

Just seemed like a good assumption to make at the time since they're a TPIA as well.

I'm very happy to hear this Marc, and not to sound crude, but a proper reporting system should have been in place from day one, not now, so while I'm excited about this, I'm not entire happy it took so long for it to happen. But, progress is progress, and I know we've all come a long way, but I would be really happy if Teksavvy could appear to be more active rather than reactive in the future. I could be totally wrong, but I think most people will agree that the impression we have is Teksavvy has been focusing on "fixing" things after problems occur rather than preventing problems from happening to begin with. And because of this, I'm very happy to hear this change, and I hope this is a fundamental change and not solely yet again a reactive measure as a result of the massive outages that have been happening in the recent months.

Regardless, props guys, I'm really hoping to stay with you guys, even though it's my 5th day not without internet

Jon Lai, you've got to remember the WAY this all came about.

The CRTC asked the incumbents ... How do you intend to provide TPIA service and provide customer service to the TPIAs? Rogers responded with the mechanism they wanted and that was that. Note that there was no input from the TPIAs there!

The CRTC, probably quite naively, thought that the incumbents and the TPIAs would be co-operative and work out the glitches and that when Rogers for example said it would respond to TPIA requests / tickets etc within 48 hours, that they would actually take as much of that 48 hours as they possibly could! No one expected that when things weren't working that Rogers would stick like glue to their 48 hour email response system when it became clear personal interaction to get things expedited was necessary. But Rogers chose to stick by the mechanism they told the CRTC and taht was the ONLY mechanism they were willing to entertain.

Bottom line is nobody expected the level of beligerance that Rogers has displayed when the processes were put in place. So, there was no way to know that this was going to be the result. Then because of the CRTC process, the only way to deal with it is a reactive process because they ARE a reactive process all by themselves.

You are not the only one that has a negative view of CRTC.

So far every time CRTC is asked to fix stuff for the IISP, the prices goes up. Asked about have better access for CO got us UBB saga, then in CBB price hike for the incumbent's internal network. The incumbent's prices are hiding under ###, so whatever they say cannot be argued by the IISP. The CRTC dropped a few bones recently being a bit more critical on the pricing, and that's about it.

"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further" - Darth Vader.

The UBB saga was waiting in the wings and would have happened with or without the requests. CBB was the result of the UBB being rejected by the Minister telling the CRTC ... find a better way. UBB had been there for years and is still there for retail customers ... at least in a slightly more palatable way for the TPIAs

Unfortunately the incumbents have been using complaints to introduce other issues from their ends, but rest assured, they'd drag them out no matter what happened. Coincidence and all that!

Just started reading this and i'm sure i'll have at least 15 more comments to make, but, in regards to the techs dispatched to homes and their solicitations (I believe this may be found in the Bell forum from a few years back):

Techs dispatched to a home who is using a reseller get a commission when they get that home to switch back to Bell. I am unsure if Rogers does this. Never heard of it with Videotron.

The union that the Bell techs (or 3rd party techs) belong to even had this up on their website as a way for these union members to earn extra money with Bell. This was a perk Bell offered the union. I don't believe this was a union demand, heh. But money is money.

Makes me wonder if we will see the union intervene, or if Bell will do what they usually do... write a form letter for them and tell them to sign it.

Did CNOC consider this when they wrote this? I assume they are aware of this Bell-Union factoid.

off to read the other 70 pages i got left...

While you have a type of incentive plan written up (something like 5%), i'm not sure I fully understood it.

Also, while CNOC members are looking out for themselves (and their respective business images, as was stated in the filing), I do see how this can lead to less no-show techs. But, I do not think this goes far enough at all. Not at all. It does nothing for the people that actually have to lose 100$ taking a day or half day off work, then a second or 3rd day, or half day, off work again due to all these no-show techs.

It needs to go further. It's all nice and dandy that CNOC members are looking out for their image and how this incentive may help, but I hope someone else files about how the people themselves are impacted financially. It should even be something that someone should file that the CCTS should be able to set a fixed cost for no-show techs. Something the people can get compensation from and thus a penalty for the the ISP.

Because let's face it, it is us, the people, who end up losing money time and time again for this same thing.

Hope JF, or other, files this.

I'm in Videotron land so I haven't experienced any of the service and/or support issues that those of you in Rogers territory have, but regardless, very impressed with this filing. I certainly hope the CRTC takes some action on this.

You're very lucky. I personally know of 4 people in Rogers-land with a complete outage. Time for a fix is given "about a week." I'm sure Rogers would be there tomorrow if they signed up today.

Its up on the site.

Link to filing:
»services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/Interven···ET=A#SE0
--
Battle.net Tech Support MVP

If that part about solicitations is true, is there anything wrong with that?

It's not obvious to me, unless it's obvious vertical separation is inevitable.

A little late coming into this, but good work!!

I had a feeling this was coming as TSI was saying less and less about their "vendor" when all the problems and delays were mounting.
--
TekSavvy 35/3 cable - Technicolor DCM476 - Ubiquiti EdgeRouter Lite - Amer Networks SGD8 switch - ASUS RT-N66U (as AP)

How would you like it if you hired a contractor to do some work for your customer for you, but then when that contractor showed up he tried to convince your customer to switch to your competitor? Wouldn't you feel that your contractor shouldn't be advertising for your competition on YOUR dime?
--
Latest version of CapSavvy systray usage checker: »CapSavvy v4.2 released!

One of things I'm confused about is you ask for the IP addresses from the DHCP pool being used during peak times.

My connection runs 24/7 phone, tablet/ media player, computer and or laptop (yeah I'm wired), something is using the net.

So telling you that my IP is in use, is going to tell you what exactly?
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......

Based on IP usage, it can tell TSI how many IPs are allocated or free from a subnet so they can track when they need to get additional IPs. Since Rogers takes so long to update the DHCP scopes, it's better to request it as soon as they know to avoid interruptions.

From what I understand, TSI has only once had the problem of an actual IP shortage with red. All other incidents of "no ips" come from red's distribution and allocation of the IPs allocated to them.

The hassle is because of red's network design, they allocate TPIA IPs on a CMTS basis, where they allocate their own on a global basis across the network. Therefore when they do node splits etc, they have to do an IP reallocation. Then to complicate things, they do special routing for the TPIAs to take one or two possible paths to the APOI at YM. So, every time they juggle IPs, they also have to update the routing tables in all the routers!

Crazy.

It's not about monitoring individual users and their usage of the IP addresses, rather the total capacity on the IP pools and the distribution so when they exceed the addressing space or when the nodes split, they need to know where to allocate additional IPs. What aren't you understanding?