dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
51
share rss forum feed


JCohen
Premium
join:2010-10-19
Nepean, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to milnoc

Re: Incompetent technician cut off my Internet!

said by milnoc:

As a result of this, I have no other choice but to seek financial compensation above the current monthly Internet costs. Starting tomorrow, both TekSavvy and Bell Canada will be fined $100 EACH per FULL day that I'm without Internet service, up to a maximum of $7,000, the maximum amount that can be claimed in Quebec Small Claims Court.

It is time to make corporations financially responsible for their blatant incompetence.

Yea, cause $7,000 is going to make a company as big as Bell financially responsible. In 2010 they had a revenue of $10.069 Billion, $7,000 is just pennies and not even worth your time to try and get; guess what else, you'll have even more lost days at work when you try to fight them.


milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2
On my own, no. it won't make a difference. But if I win, people will realize they can sue and win as well, especially once I publish how I won my case.

And if I lose, depending on the circumstances, it could not only bring to light serious flaws in Canada's telecom regulations, it could also result in the introduction of tougher consumer protection laws.

Any way you look at it, my actions could potentially expose a lot of the industry's dirty laundry. And selling the ebook about my experience for a buck could help pay off all of the costs.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live


dillyhammer
START me up
Premium
join:2010-01-09
Scarborough, ON
kudos:10
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·Start Communicat..
reply to JCohen
said by JCohen:

Yea, cause $7,000 is going to make a company as big as Bell financially responsible. In 2010 they had a revenue of $10.069 Billion, $7,000 is just pennies

Man, that is so not the point.

The point is, when you do something wrong you should pay a price. That is the very foundation of our court systems, and our belief systems in general.

Someone needs to be on the carpet for this BS.

Mike
--
Cogeco - The New UBB Devil -»[Burloak] Usage Based Billing Nightmare
Make The Switch - »openmedia.ca/switch


nuageux

@videotron.ca
Ya but it's a mistake, it will always happen. They don't want to do mistake, when they have to come back to fix the mistake, it cost money to them. Why this mistake happen two times? Maybe there's something wrong, a mix-up with the wiring? Wich wiring, the one owned by Bell or the interior wiring of the building? If it's with the interior wiring of the building and if it's owned by the building's owner, maybe the building owner is responsable about these mistakes, maybe it's the one who have to pay?

Anyway, I think you over reacted about that! If the customer isn't happy with his adsl Internet connection, maybe he must switch to cable?


milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2
The building's wiring is owned by Bell. My demarc is the phone jack in the wall.

The only option for the cable "last mile" is Videotron.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live


nitzguy
Premium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON
reply to dillyhammer
said by dillyhammer:

said by JCohen:

Yea, cause $7,000 is going to make a company as big as Bell financially responsible. In 2010 they had a revenue of $10.069 Billion, $7,000 is just pennies

Man, that is so not the point.

The point is, when you do something wrong you should pay a price. That is the very foundation of our court systems, and our belief systems in general.

Someone needs to be on the carpet for this BS.

Mike



Listen, unless you can prove GROSS NEGLIGENCE on the part of Bell/Tech its a moot point, it was a simple accident, these things happen...

No Court of law, especially a "small claims court" is going to award what you're looking for.

Especially jurisdiction, since you'd be in Ontario, you'd be subject to the laws of the land of Ontario...

When an innocent mistake is made, the court should NOT be the recourse.

Internet access is not enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms...Internet is not a right.....(although most people here would think otherwise).

But I wish you luck in your quest. You can receive judgment even if you do win, and then how do you enforce collection on them?

Again, I wish you luck but I feel like you're fighting a losing battle, and even in small claims court, the defendants in this case if successful would still have you pay the court costs that they incurred and I'm sure their lawyers won't come cheap.


Inssomniak
The Glitch
Premium
join:2005-04-06
Cayuga, ON
kudos:2
said by nitzguy:

Internet access is not enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms...Internet is not a right.....(although most people here would think otherwise).

+1
--
OptionsDSL Wireless Internet
»www.optionsdsl.ca


milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2
reply to nitzguy
said by nitzguy:

Listen, unless you can prove GROSS NEGLIGENCE on the part of Bell/Tech its a moot point, it was a simple accident, these things happen...

Bullshit. You make a mistake, you must make reparations for that mistake. That's the ethical thing to do.

And this particular mistake happened not once, but twice.

Got a call from Bell. The line will be reconnected on Wednesday morning. That means I'll be demanding $200 each from Bell Canada and TekSavvy as compensation.

Unless they send the same INCOMPETENT technician, at which point I'll refuse them entry. I've already warned TekSavvy about this.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live

Grappler

join:2002-09-01
Ottawa, ON
said by milnoc:

Bullshit. You make a mistake, you must make reparations for that mistake. That's the ethical thing to do.

...

Unless they send the same INCOMPETENT technician, at which point I'll refuse them entry. I've already warned TekSavvy about this.

I guess then you will not get connected as you will be refusing entry to all the technicians that will be sent. (you already stated you cannot identify the technician)

Do not confuse ethical with legal.
Expand your moderator at work

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to nitzguy

Re: Incompetent technician cut off my Internet!

said by nitzguy:



Listen, unless you can prove GROSS NEGLIGENCE on the part of Bell/Tech its a moot point, it was a simple accident, these things happen...

Just because 'accidents happen' does not mean that the victim is SOL.

You rear-end somebody in your car and what happens to the victim's repair costs? Either your insurance company pays, or you do out-of-pocket. Bell is self-insured & TSI is self-insured.

TSI is responsible to directly compensate the customer as they are the so called 'service provider'. Bell is responsible for contributory negligence in the same way that jerkass parents are if their kid leaves the moveable basketball post/net in the street at night and you drive down the road and smack into it (happens in Forest Hill where some people think they own the road too).


milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2
reply to Grappler
said by Grappler:

I guess then you will not get connected as you will be refusing entry to all the technicians that will be sent. (you already stated you cannot identify the technician)

Do not confuse ethical with legal.

I don't know his name, but I do know what he looks like.

And if a company uses legal means to behave unethically, what does that say about the entire organisation?

Andre, the tech is scheduled to show up tomorrow morning. Hopefully.

If service isn't restored, I'll have to reconsider doing business with your company. Losing service like this due to blatant INCOMPETENCE is simply unacceptable.

Or maybe MALICIOUS INTENT. "Breaking" a customer's existing connection while working on another customer's connection would be a neat little way for a subcontracted technician to get repeated service calls (and service call payments) to the same building address.
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada

1 edit
said by milnoc:

And if a company uses legal means to behave unethically, what does that say about the entire organisation?

If service isn't restored, I'll have to reconsider doing business with your company. Losing service like this due to blatant INCOMPETENCE is simply unacceptable.

Or maybe MALICIOUS INTENT. "Breaking" a customer's existing connection while working on another customer's connection would be a neat little way for a subcontracted technician to get repeated service calls (and service call payments) to the same building address.

Wow - tin foil hat's on a little tight today, isn't it?

A BTS tech pulls a jumper with no dial-tone - on an non-standard installed service (you said they previously ran a direct drop from the JWI, as the wiring in your MDU's messed), and suddenly it's "malicious intent"?!?

To be honest, while it's a pain in the ass to be without internet, you're really starting to sound like the kind of customer company's don't mind losing. Threatening to sue, talking about mal intent, and generally being wound for sound...

If you legitimately need an internet connection to do business; then pay for a business service - they come with SLA's, priority repairs, etc, etc - but that service level comes with an appropriate cost.

I'm not trying to defend Bell (TSI pretty much doesn't have a horse in the race, other then being stuck in the middle) - but you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill, IMO...


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to Inssomniak
+2


battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to LazMan
"you're really starting to sound like the kind of customer company's don't mind losing."

I am so glad I do not have to deal with residential users anymore....
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.


milnoc

join:2001-03-05
H3B
kudos:2
If I had my choice, I would have gone with Cogent. Three years at my datacenter, only two interruptions, you pay by speed only (no caps), and surprisingly less expensive than residential DSL.

Heck, their monitoring systems managed to detect the times when MY system went down!
--
Watch my future television channel's public test broadcast!
»thecanadianpublic.com/live
Expand your moderator at work


nitzguy
Premium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON
reply to MaynardKrebs

Re: Incompetent technician cut off my Internet!

said by MaynardKrebs:

said by nitzguy:



Listen, unless you can prove GROSS NEGLIGENCE on the part of Bell/Tech its a moot point, it was a simple accident, these things happen...

Just because 'accidents happen' does not mean that the victim is SOL.

You rear-end somebody in your car and what happens to the victim's repair costs? Either your insurance company pays, or you do out-of-pocket. Bell is self-insured & TSI is self-insured.

TSI is responsible to directly compensate the customer as they are the so called 'service provider'. Bell is responsible for contributory negligence in the same way that jerkass parents are if their kid leaves the moveable basketball post/net in the street at night and you drive down the road and smack into it (happens in Forest Hill where some people think they own the road too).

Yes....but in this case you're equating a car accident with a service interruption....the 2 are not the same.

TSI would have to provide restitution up to and including the days they are without service, so you take whatever rate he pays, and if its a 30 day billing cycle or a 31 day billing cycle, you divide accordingly, so 6 days in 30 days would be 1/5th of the months service...

So in an example, lets say he had unlimited DSL 25.... it would be 1/5th of 77.99/month...or a credit of roughly $15.59 on his account, not this $100/day from both TSI and Bell...if anything the TSI case would be thrown out as its not their technician and they wouldn't be found negligent...

Even in a small claims court, the burden of proof is still on the Plantiff to PROVE that there was negligence on the part of the Tech that he didn't want to do his job or actively cut the line, there again are these things called mistakes, but its not about insurance...

Again, you're trying to equate Car rules with service interruption rules and the 2 are mutually exclusive, he agreed when he signed on for the service to agree to the Terms and Conditions...he had an out, if he didn't want to exercise that out, that's his perogative...

Again I wish the OP luck.....but as others have said, maybe someone else would be happy to have his service....