dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
54
share rss forum feed

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
reply to Anun

Re: Rogers answerable to CRTC over ITMP again

Update:
Seems somehow Rogers managed to input another customer's information into CGO co-founder Jason Koblovsky's Rogers account, causing a disconnection order to be placed onto his account.

Considering how much they verify the account and its holder, I find this explanation as to the cause of the disconnection order, dubious at best.

Jason has filed a CCTS complaint to get to the bottom of this, and is informing the CRTC's enforcement department on this issue of a disconnection order on a complainant's account.

In other news:
Nothing back yet from the CRTC's enforcement department. Jason will be contacting them next week to get an update as to what's going on.


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
Haha, how convenient.

Rogers incompetence has been at an all time high recently, with TPIA DHCP issues that have lasted a week for some users.
--
GO LEAFS GO!

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
Actually, I mentioned that to Jason, who brought it up with Rogers.
Jason just posted a blog post on it:

»jasonkoblovsky.blogspot.com/2011···unt.html

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

Rogers has refused to provide access to our account information, or hand that information off to us when requested

Hmm. Never mind (just) the CCTS. Sounds like a PIPEDA-based complaint to the Privacy Commissioner may be in order as well.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
said by bt:

Rogers has refused to provide access to our account information, or hand that information off to us when requested

Hmm. Never mind (just) the CCTS. Sounds like a PIPEDA-based complaint to the Privacy Commissioner may be in order as well.

Am I missing something? How is this a privacy issue? Did Rogers hand off Jason's information to a third party?

You want privacy issues? I take issue that some CSR on the phone knows how much money is in the bank account, or how much debt I might be carrying.

What gets me even more upset is the same CSR at PC Financial booth in Loblaws can bring up the same info in plain sight of everyone.
--
It's got a cop motor, a 440 cubic inch plant, it's got cop tires, cop suspensions, cop shocks. It's a model made before catalytic converters so it'll run good on regular gas. What do you say, is it the new Bluesmobile or what?

resa1983
Premium
join:2008-03-10
North York, ON
kudos:10
said by elwoodblues:

said by bt:

Rogers has refused to provide access to our account information, or hand that information off to us when requested

Hmm. Never mind (just) the CCTS. Sounds like a PIPEDA-based complaint to the Privacy Commissioner may be in order as well.

Am I missing something? How is this a privacy issue? Did Rogers hand off Jason's information to a third party?

You want privacy issues? I take issue that some CSR on the phone knows how much money is in the bank account, or how much debt I might be carrying.

What gets me even more upset is the same CSR at PC Financial booth in Loblaws can bring up the same info in plain sight of everyone.

We don't know whether what they told Jason was true, or whether its just an excuse.

What worries me about if it was just a simple mistake:
If someone knows my address and calls up Rogers to set up an account, and says "I'm moving into [insert my home address], and would like to set up a new account" with fake information and a stolen credit card, they can harass me and have my account disconnected. That one person can cause changes to another person's account, which shouldn't be possible.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

said by bt:

Rogers has refused to provide access to our account information, or hand that information off to us when requested

Hmm. Never mind (just) the CCTS. Sounds like a PIPEDA-based complaint to the Privacy Commissioner may be in order as well.

Am I missing something?

Yes, you are.

One of the core principles of PIPEDA is a right to access, review and correct any electronically stored PII about you a company may have. They can make it more difficult through identification requirements, and can drag it out for 30 days without stating why, but they can't outright refuse.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to bt
The CCTS has agreed to look into this disconnection case. PIPEDA and Privacy Commissioner may also be contacted as well pending the outcome of the CCTS investigation. Here's the case made to CCTS on this disconnection front. Would also advise others with the same problems to file suit as well.

------------------------------------------

We feel that this situation may be a result of undue discrimination for filing a CRTC complaint. We are not satisfied with the information provided by Rogers on their internal investigation to dispute this claim. Rogers has also refused access to information pertaining to our account on this matter when requested to them directly. We also believe that we have a reasonable expectation that our account remains secure from tampering or unauthorised orders or changes made to our account which was not the case here.

We request that the CCTS provide the following remedies under section 12.1 of the CCTS procedural code:

12.1 In making a Recommendation or Decision, the Commissioner may require the TSP Member to:

(b) undertake to do or cease doing specified activities with respect to the Customer;

Specifically we would like a gaurnetee from Rogers that there will be no more unauthorised orders or changes made to our account without explicit and verified permission from either the account holder my wife or myself.

and

12.1 In making a Recommendation or Decision, the Commissioner may require the TSP Member to:

(c) pay the Customer monetary compensation in an amount not to exceed:
(i) in relation to any single complaint, or any two or more complaints consolidated pursuant to Section 6.15, five thousand dollars ($5,000) in the aggregate

Total compensation: 5 hours total of having to deal with this complaint during business operating hours over the past month or so. I bill out at $60 per hour for my time to my clients, thus total compensation we are seeking amounts to $300 for lost time spent on trying to resolve this complaint with Rogers.

Jason Koblovsky


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
The issue is, that it's extremely easy to make changes to someone else's account.

All Rogers asks for is the name, phone number an address/postal code to verify the account. All information someone can get if they just look thru someone's garbage, or thru their mail.

My friend had a neighbour register a digital box on his account. He only found out when he tried to get another box and they said he was over the limit of 4 outlets, as he had 3 boxes already and wanted a 4th. They went thru all of his home boxes serial numbers and found out

The neighbour was stealing cable and basically had himself free full digital VIP cable with the movie channels for nearly 2 years. He said the next day he saw a Rogers van next door and he disconnected the illegal cable.
--
GO LEAFS GO!


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
They asked me for my birthdate when I call.

That said, if you are tossing bills into the recycle bin "As is" then that's just stupid. I spent last night shredding bills from 10yrs ago before they go into the recycle bin.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
reply to jkoblovsky
UPDATE: Rogers called today wanted to compensate our account with a 20% discount on our Internet for 1 year which worked out to be $160, with no guarantee that this will not happen again. The offer was rejected so the CCTS will have to find a solution here, and investigate further. I will also be making a complaint into the privacy commissioner’s office to further investigate pending the outcome of the CCTS investigation.

jkoblovsky

join:2011-09-27
Keswick, ON
kudos:2
Yet another development:

Here's Rogers letter to the CCTS complaint I filed:

We are writing in response to a complaint filed on your behalf with the Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunication Services (CCTS), received by Rogers Office of the President on November 17, 2011, regarding your Internet Access Services.

We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns. A full review of your account has been conducted and we were able to contact you on November 22, 2011 to discuss your concerns. Details of this conversation are as follows:

Upon review of your account it was discovered that a disconnect order was mistakenly placed on your account when we received incorrect information from another customer. This order was corrected as soon as it was identified and did not result in any interruption to your services.

Please be advised of the following:

- A formal letter of apology was sent out to the customer dated November 3, 2011 from Rogers Office of the President.

- Offered a 20% off his cable services for a period of 12 months ($12.78 plus applicable taxes per month), which the customer rejected.

- The customer is requesting compensation for the time spent on the phone with Rogers ($300.00).

We take your concerns seriously and your feedback was greatly appreciated. However, Rogers is declining your request to have you compensated for loss of time or time spent. Pursuant to Rogers Terms and Service Section 29; Rogers does not compensate for loss of time and time spent.

My Response:

Please be advised that I am in recept of Rogers letter dated November 22nd, 2011, and wish to further respond to the CCTS.

In Rogers above dated letter, Rogers has refused to provide any sort of guarantee that this type of situation will not occur again on our account. We request that the CCTS order such a resolution.

The Rogers investigation into the unauthorised disconnection was consumer complaint based, and was not initiated by Rogers on their own good will. I had to request such an investigation, and had I not caught this myself, all of our services (cable, internet, and phone) would have been interrupted on November 8th, 2011. Several phone calls and e-mails were made on my behalf to get this matter resolved, both within Rogers customer service (who had problems finding our account initially due to "consolidated records") and with the Presidents Office.

In Rogers letter dated November 22nd, Rogers stated:

"However, Rogers is declining your request to have you compensated for loss of time or time spent. Pursuant to Rogers Terms and Service Section 29; Rogers does not compensate for loss of time and time spent."

It makes no sense to quote the above Terms and Service Section when Rogers is offering compensation based on exactly that.

"- Offered a 20% off his cable services for a period of 12 months ($12.78 plus applicable taxes per month), which the customer rejected."

Rogers Terms of Service Agreement may in fact be invalid or not applicable in this case since Rogers has offered a compensation package on its own merits (although only after the CCTS forwarded off our complaint). The CCTS has the power under law to ensure Rogers stops with the unauthorized orders on our account, and order up a reasonable compensation package based on CCTS procedural code. I think we have been very reasonable with Rogers on the $300 compensation. We however do believe that Rogers is being quite unreasonable in it's reply.


FKharper

@bell.ca
jkoblovsky,
i'm starting to think you won't be on Santa's (Rogers) Xmas list this year


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
reply to jkoblovsky
Hahah 20% which any joe blow can get via retentions. Hell I got 30% off my cable tv without much trying, on a single service.
--
GO LEAFS GO!


TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
said by HiVolt:

Hahah 20% which any joe blow can get via retentions. Hell I got 30% off my cable tv without much trying, on a single service.

not anymore. the most they will now do unless it changes is %15 on your TV now. I canceled my cable over it was $55 before but with just %15 off was going to turn into $69 to much for me.