dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2187
MrMazda86 (banned)
join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

MrMazda86 (banned) to TSI Andre

Member

to TSI Andre

Re: [DSL] A VERY unhappy customer experience!!!

Thank you. I think I may have found the cause of the missing email. It appears that my suspicion of a relay issue between the MX host and the local mail folder during transport may have occurred. I should know more shortly. If this is the case, it does explain why the records seem to show that the message was delivered to the MX host, but did not reach the destination mailbox. The short version of what appears to have happened is that when the message relay was attempted, the mailbox was already locked because by freak coinsidence, the message transport was attempted at the same time as another delivery of a message from a backup MX. Instead of deferring the message to the delivery queue, the server dropped the message silently without sending back either a bounce or delay message.

As for the installation date issue, I'm not exactly happy with the wait, but I appreciate your efforts. I would like to see a follow-up with Bell. The buzz Code was provided to TekSavvy, which makes me question whether or not Bell put it on the work order form they gave the technician. This is a common Bell "oops" in my experience. That being said though, the buzzer code is listed in the directory under the same name as is on the order. This sounds to me like either Bell did not provide this to the technician and they got lazy and did not call us or bother to try looking up our buzz Code or contact the super, or that the Bell technician was just a plain dick and couldn't be bothered to do the job. Either way, it's a problem and Bell is not being very co-operative. The other thing I still do not understand (and hopefully you can answer) is why the technician would need into the building at all when there already was an active line running from demarc to the apartment and the Demarc box is on the left side of the building, next to the visitors parking garage entrance, outside of the building. Is it possible to look into this? It would also help to better point the finger at the EXACT problem to address on Bell's side of the arrangement. I fail to grasp at why this access would be needed under these circumstances, and thus question whether it was an incompotant technician, a lazy technician, a screw up on the business office end, or a combination of factors. Thank you.
jibby
join:2008-03-31

jibby

Member

ah the good old Bell 'whisper knock'

i've spent days sitting beside my door waiting for Bell, then open the door and find a note saying they knocked and i wasn't home

or the good old 'we called and you didn't answer' but they call a dead line, the wrong number or just never call but claim they did

it's an easy way to close the ticket and go onto the next job
MrMazda86 (banned)
join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

MrMazda86 (banned)

Member

I strongly suspect that could be what happened here. In this case, access to the apartment, or even the building for that matter should not have been needed because the line was running to the apartment before the technician started dismantling it, meaning even if they had gutted the circuit and ran a whole new everything to Demarc, they should not have needed access to the apartment because if it's working at Demarc and the line definitely does connect to the apartment, in theory there should be no reason why the line shouldn't work. It's just crazy the kind of crap that Bell pulls.... That's not even counting the technician nightmare that I had when I had my TSI DSL line on Talbot St in Kitchener, or the 9 technicians in 6 weeks and over a $900 phone bill because of that for services I had to rewire and fix myself because Bell only made the problem worse. That technician visit on Talbot St is the reason why that station was moved to TSI cable to cut Bell out of the picture completely.

TSI Andre
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03
Chatham, ON

TSI Andre

Premium Member

That is something we will never be able to confirm. All we can do now is stay positive and keep our fingers crossed for you on the 3rd.

bbbc
join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica

3 edits

bbbc to jibby

Member

to jibby
said by jibby:

ah the good old Bell 'whisper knock'

i've spent days sitting beside my door waiting for Bell, then open the door and find a note saying they knocked and i wasn't home

or the good old 'we called and you didn't answer' but they call a dead line, the wrong number or just never call but claim they did

it's an easy way to close the ticket and go onto the next job

Yeah, over half my IISP installs with different Canadian incumbents (east and west) have been effed up. I'm such a village idiot now, that I write huge notes and tape them to the front door indicating I'm around and provide them with various alternate phone numbers. The difference between me and MrMazda86 is I expect the install to go wrong.

I have to give Andre credit because I rode his ass (no jokes) on an important friend last year. My buddy is a lawyer and I knew they would meltdown if the install didn't go right. Andre dealt with my anal-ness and lo and behold, the install went swimmingly.

TSI Andre
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03
Chatham, ON

TSI Andre

Premium Member

said by bbbc:I have to give Andre credit because I rode his ass (no jokes) on an important friend last year. My buddy is a lawyer and I knew they would meltdown if the install didn't go right. Andre dealt with my anal-ness and lo and behold, the install went swimmingly.

:) Now that made me laugh and feel good! Thanks.
bjlockie
join:2007-12-16
Ontario
Technicolor TC4350
Asus RT-AC56
Grandstream HandyTone 702/704

bjlockie to MrMazda86

Member

to MrMazda86
said by MrMazda86:

when the message relay was attempted, the mailbox was already locked because by freak coinsidence, the message transport was attempted at the same time as another delivery of a message from a backup MX. Instead of deferring the message to the delivery queue, the server dropped the message silently without sending back either a bounce or delay message.

Sounds like a bug in the mail server?
btech805
join:2013-08-01
Canada

btech805 to MrMazda86

Member

to MrMazda86
I don't think you once mentioned this was an apartment installation and they are completely different than a single family unit. You knew there was a dial tone (albeit no sync by your own experience) at the demarc but the tech cannot know this unless he is physically inside you apartment as the demarc is a jack within the apartment. So yes access was required. Like I previously mentioned, it is possible the tech did his prep work and ran the jumpers at the crossbox and because the previous owner /tenant had Bell, everything worked right to said jack. HOWEVER, in an apartment there are only two ways in, via buzzer or having the client let us in. Assuming the buzzer wasn't hooked up yet by management, or at the very least your name was not on the front door with your buzzer code, that leaves calling upstairs. Knowing cell reception is poor in most MDUs, it is entirely possible the tech called you and the call was missed. As per process again as I mentioned, the tech would incomplete the work order and remove the jumpers at the crossbox that had connected you to the network.
Expand your moderator at work
MrMazda86 (banned)
join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

MrMazda86 (banned) to TSI Andre

Member

to TSI Andre

Re: [DSL] A VERY unhappy customer experience!!!

Well.... Then is there any way that we can hold the Bell technician responsible either for flat out lying by stating that he attempted contact when he did not, or otherwise hold them responsible for not making a reasonable effort to do the job properly?

TSI Andre
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03
Chatham, ON

1 edit

TSI Andre

Premium Member

Short of having a camera crew following him and catch him in the act of doing something like that, there is no way for us to know for sure, so no.

My recommendation to you is when he comes on Monday, let him do his job.
MrMazda86 (banned)
join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

MrMazda86 (banned)

Member

I have no problem giving the technician a chance. All I expect is that the technician be honest, at least make a reasonable effort to resolve the problem, and communicate with us if there are unforseen issues to keep us in the loop. If they step foot in my apartment though, I will still give them a chance to do their jib, but I will NOT let them out of my site until they are out the door.

On another note, I do have a question with respect to the connection. When I first wired up everything in the apartment, I used an old Simmons SpeedStream 6520 modem. I know this is a really old modem, but will it support the 7/1 profile, or am I better off to take a trip to my Brantford office to snag me a 2-Wire 2701HG-G modem on this profile? The answer to that could save me possible headache come Monday.

For that matter, does anyone know the max hardware sync rates for said Simmons SpeedStream 6520 modem?

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook

Mod

Simmons is a mattress ... I think you mean Seimens, the German Electrical and Electronics company. These modems were originally manufactured by Efficient Networks so you may see them advertised as Efficient Speedstream Modems ... Efficient was bought out by Siemens.

oceros37
join:2013-07-20
St Thomas, ON

oceros37 to MrMazda86

Member

to MrMazda86
A quick google search says its good up to 15/1 dsl.

SpeedStream® 6520 Residential Gateway - Technical Data
Access types
DSL G.lite, ADSL2, ADSL2+, and RE-ADSL
Ethernet yes

How well it would handle a 15/1 (17mbps) sync rate is maybe another story but you should be fine for 7/1.
MrMazda86 (banned)
join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

MrMazda86 (banned)

Member

Perfect.... Thank you
MrMazda86

2 edits

MrMazda86 (banned)

Member

Well.... Bell has finally arrived and gotten things working. It turns out that the previous technician who showed up last week and screwed things up was not only a liar, but completely incompetent as well. The previous technician made two claims that I were somewhat contradicting. Now that I we have gotten to the bottom of what had happened, there are even more questions that have been raised about the previous technician.

First, the previous technician claimed that the installation was complete. The technician was correct in the sense that all the hardware that was required to be on the line was in fact installed on the line and properly functioning. I can agree that in "theory", he did actually get this part correct..... That brings me to problem #2 that I have with the previous technician, now that the technician that just left has shed some light on what actually happened.

The second claim that the technician made, which kind somewhat contradicts the original statement that there was "no access", raises other issues, including the fact that I can now concretely say 100% positively that the previous technician falsified the notes, and therefore LIED on record. While it is true that the line was correctly installed with respect to it being functional as a dry GAS line, the technician royally screwed things up on the 7th floor. This is where I have another problem with the previous technician. According to the file, the technician claims that there was "no access" to the building in which to complete the work, despite also claiming that the installation was complete. The reason for this is quite simple.... Instead of wiring the now activated dry GAS line back to my apartment (1307) after the DSL hardware was installed, he ran the jumper from the SLAM to the wiring split on the 66-block that runs (and is tagged) as running to apartment #907. My question here is how the hell could he have made such a gross error if he would have had to have removed the jumper from #1307 when installing the SLAM on the 7th floor, just to hook my line back up to APT 907?

Effectively, we were made to wait for a WEEK with absolutely no service at all because the previous technician redirected my line to another apartment instead of mine. Also, this does not explain how the technician had "no access" to the building, when they were able to access the building to make it up to the 7th floor to pull the jumper from apt 1307 and wire it to apt 907? This just does not add up to me. Either way, something just does NOT add up, and if possible, I would like this followed up on to hold the previous technician responsible not only for falsifying the notes on the account, but also for his gross incompetence of wiring the jumper after activation to the line that the technician could show me was CLEARLY marked as going to apartment 907, instead of wiring it to the line that was CLEARLY marked 1307. Is there any way of doing this? I have NO tolerance for liars, and it's VERY clear to me that he previous technician did exactly that, which is something that I will NOT stand for. Please let me know what can be done about that.

Also, I appear to be having some connectivity issues with respect to actually getting the proper speeds that I am supposed to. I have reason to believe that the modem may be the issue here, or that it might be that I am broadcasting on the wrong wireless channel. One way or another though, I am not consistently getting the speeds that I should be getting. I will be following up with this today and running some testing of my own to determine whether the problem is in fact on my end, or if there is still a problem with the line. I will post back once I know for sure where that problem lies. At least, I can admit, the line has now been confirmed to be running to the correct apartment now, instead of to a neighbour. I should know within the next couple of hours.

On that note, I am a little displeased about the fact that I am paying for a 7/1 profile, but my upload speed was changed by the technician to only having an 800kbit upload profile. How can this be changed? I know the speed difference is not much, but I do not think it fair to be paying for more than I am actually receiving, and after the experiences that I have had with Bell, I would love nothing more than to stick it to Bell for having put me through what they have. Please advise.

I still stand by my opinion that this video perfectly reflects my opinion of Bell:

»youtu.be/6r-ee5FAINc
BrianON
join:2011-09-30
Ottawa, ON

BrianON

Member

Absent an end to end test, which for an apartment requires access to the apartment, the install is not considered complete. Marking the install as not completed with "no access" as the reason looks correct to me.

People make mistakes. There could have been mistakes or problems in the existing wiring and in the work done by the installer. The end to end test is what catches those mistakes so they can be corrected. Without access it sounds like a mistake wasn't caught and so wasn't fixed until an installer with access arrived.

oceros37
join:2013-07-20
St Thomas, ON

oceros37 to MrMazda86

Member

to MrMazda86
If you had to *reschedule* the installation, then no, the first tech did not mark it completed.

If the internal wiring was already to the wrong apartment, that first tech may not have had a hand in that at all. It's easy enough to assume the worst but try to stick to what you can say is truth.

For example, do you remember typing this paragraph?
quote:
First off, I would like to be VERY clear when I say that TekSavvy most definitely did NOT email us the confirmation email to confirm that YESTERDAY was our installation date, so I waited at home all day for NO reason, thus loosing money on work I could have been doing otherwise. Thanks a lot for not keeping your PAYING customers in the loop TekSavvy.... It's nice to know you don't keep in contact with new customers.
Sometimes assumptions are wrong.
MrMazda86 (banned)
join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

MrMazda86 (banned) to BrianON

Member

to BrianON
How can it be "no access" when the technician NEVER even ATTEMPTED access? It's not a "no access" when the technician NEVER even tried to access the apartment. This also does NOT explain why the jumper was wired from the SLAM on the 7th floor to the lines that were CLEARLY marked for apartment 907. This is not a case of a "no access", but rather a case of a technician who either didn't give a s*** about getting it right, or was completely retarded and didn't bother to do the job right because it was too close to 5pm to be bothered to make sure that he got it right. In my opinion, "no access" is NOT the appropriate way to handle the case when the technician NEVER bothered to take the elevator from the 7th floor to the 13th floor to try knocking on the apartment door. I don't buy the crap of marking it no access when the technician NEVER attempted access. Don't give me that crap!
MrMazda86

MrMazda86 (banned) to oceros37

Member

to oceros37
Actually, yes... It WAS the technician's fault. Before the technician came and installed the SLAM on the 7th floor, the wiring did complete its round to the apartment directly. I had a dial tone and could dial to ANARC before the technician installed the SLAM because the jumper at that point on the 7th floor was properly run to the wires marked 1307.... AFTER the first technician installed the SLAM on the 7th floor, which would have required access to the building to get to, the jumper was wired from the SLAM to the split for apartment 907.... I could see for myself that the lines were CLEARLY marked, so this isn't some kind of "simple mistake" that we're dealing with, but rather a completely incompetent technician who first claimed the install was complete, even though it was run to the WRONG APARTMENT, then when I called them on it, claimed that they did not have access to the building, when in fact, they were on the 7th floor.... If they could make it to the 7th floor to install the SLAM, they obviously got into the building and therefore could have taken the elevator from the 7th floor to the 13th floor to come knocking on my door. I was home the whole time and would have heard the cell phone ring or heard a knock at the door. Neither one of these two things happened, which means as far as I'm concerned, saying that there was "no access" to the apartment is a flat out LIE... It's not that the first technician didn't have access to the apartment, but rather that the technician was lazy and didn't want to hop back into the elevator and make a trip from the 7th floor to the 13th floor to verify that the install was done correctly. THAT is why I had to re-schedule, because the technician wanted to go home and closed the ticket 5 minutes before 5pm so that he could get paid for a job that he did wrong, instead of taking the time that he was supposed to in order to make sure that he got it right.

I only had to "reschedule" the installation because I disputed that the install was done at all because I no longer had a dial tone. I was right when I said that the problem was because of some act of douchebaggery like pulling the jumper at the CO.... It wasn't pulled at the CO.... It was just wired to the wrong apartment after the jumper left the SLAM on the 7th floor..... The end result either way would be the same in that the lines to the apartment weren't working at all after the failed installation.
MrMazda86

MrMazda86 (banned) to sbrook

Member

to sbrook
said by sbrook:

Simmons is a mattress ... I think you mean Seimens, the German Electrical and Electronics company. These modems were originally manufactured by Efficient Networks so you may see them advertised as Efficient Speedstream Modems ... Efficient was bought out by Siemens.

Bahahahahaha!! Yes... Yes I do lol lol lol lol

TSI Andre
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03
Chatham, ON

TSI Andre to MrMazda86

Premium Member

to MrMazda86
So you are aware, let's say he hadn't done anything, and we wouldn't rescheduled it, they would of pulled it eventually as the order was not completed.
MrMazda86 (banned)
join:2013-01-29
Kitchener, ON

1 edit

MrMazda86 (banned)

Member

So just to make sure that I understand the process correctly, am I to understand that if a technician decides that he does not want to complete the install properly and makes no attempt to even try to communicate with us or come up the elevator a few more floors than he already was, that unless I somehow make contact with TekSavvy, I would have paid for a service and never received it? This raises a number of ethical issues if this is the case. The biggest one being that if there were a problem with the installation, why were we not notified until AFTER the fact when we made contact to verify what was going on?

Also, this does not answer my other question. What if anything can be done to hold the previous technician responsible for making false claims, such as there being "no access" to the building or apartment when they clearly had access to the building because they installed the SLAM on the 7th floor, then wired the jumper to the wrong apartment? They could not have done this if they didn't have access to the building. This also further infuriates me to discover because this means that there is absolutely NO reason why the technician couldn't have hopped up a the elevator a few more floors and tried knocking on the apartment door. As such, I should *NOT* have had to wait an additional WEEK because the technician simply didn't feel like doing his job, which had he done right in the first place, would not have required a visit to the apartment or a re-schedule. As I said before, "no access" means that the technician attempted the installation but could not access the apartment, instead of screwing the job up, then not bothering to even try to access the apartment because it was too close to quitting time to bother to do the job right. I have asked this before, and I will ask this again.... What can be done to hold the technician responsible for botching the job so badly? Surely there must be something..... Maybe in the VC ticket that's open with Bell for their head office to look into?

On another note, it would appear that the problem with the consistency and stability of the connection had to do with two different factors... One of these factors was that the wireless router in the SpeedStream 6520 sucks donkey balls and is just plain garbage, and the other had to do with the fact that the channel I was broadcasting on was on the same channel as 4 other wireless networks in range. Once I bridged the modem then used an external router to establish the PPPoE link and manage the network on another channel, the problem seems to have been resolved.

Also, is there anything that can be done about the fact that we are paying for a 7/1 profile, but have had our upload profile reduced to 800kbit instead of 1mbit? At this point, it's the principle of the matter. I'm aware that the difference is not that much, but at this point, if TekSavvy is going to be "by the book" about this, so am I. I was not given an explanation as to why this was changed, so if possible, I would like to know why the change was made by this second technician who actually fixed what the first one screwed up by removing the jumper from apartment 907 and properly wiring it to 1307 as it should have been in the first place and was wired until the 1st technician screwed it up and re-wired the jumper to the wrong apartment.

TSI Andre
Premium Member
join:2008-06-03
Chatham, ON

1 recommendation

TSI Andre

Premium Member

Hi there,

You install was scheduled for 10/28/2014 between 12pm-6pm. On 10/29/2014 at 10:12am, we loaded the note from Bell into our queue to have someone reach out to you to figure out what was going on. 4 hours later, the account holder called in. You ask why we didn't reach out to you, it's because the account holder reached out to us before.

As for what will be done, I stand by my previous post which is nothing further. I have already spoken with Bell management and they are aware of your situation.

I don't know why you are on a lower upload profile and find out what the train of though was when it was changed is not something we are going to pursue for you. If you are having stability issues or would like us to investigate if a higher profile is obtainable, we can certainly help you with this. You will need to call in or post in the direct and we can perform some testing with you.

Although I applaud you for your passion towards your situation and your take on what happened, I cannot continue going back and forth with you on this topic. Myself and others have tried to provide you information however you completely refuse to accept any possibility which isn't "your thoughts on what happened". You were convinced that it was impossible that we had sent you an email with the confirmation, yet I proved it possible, you simply hadn't received it.

You are now absolutely convinced that the first tech acted in bad faith and even though a few of us have provided clarity, you refuse to accept it as a possibility. I cannot continue to spend hours on trying to reason with alternate possibilities.

Once again, if you need help with your stability and speeds, our teams would be more than happy to help you.

Best of luck,

Andre

sbrook
Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa

sbrook to MrMazda86

Mod

to MrMazda86
MrMazda86, you know full well that if you were with Bell, they would be quite satisfied for providing you with 800kbps up on a 1mbps up service. Since TekSavvy (and nearly every other IISP that uses Bell) are in essence Bell customers, they will have to put up with the SAME response that a direct customer would. "It's all the line will support"

Sure, it's not perfect. It's not a perfect world as I have discovered all too many times.
bluenote73
join:2009-02-17
Canada

bluenote73 to MrMazda86

Member

to MrMazda86
I'm often the first one to hold teksavvy's feet to the fire but I'm afraid you lost all credibility as soon as you had to admit it wasnt their fault you didn't get the email, and then continued making assumptions.

Who exactly WAS at fault then for 'your roommate' not receiving the email?

Also your communication with your mom is obviously a little lacking. Next time if you are the man in charge put yourself on the account and have contact go to you.

Sounds like teksavvy did most things right, and also rather heroically have been nice to you despite pretty annoying paranoid ramblings.
System

to MrMazda86

Anon

to MrMazda86
This topic has been closed. Reason: run its course