resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
to HiVolt
Re: New speeds Rogers cable - Teksavvy watch outLooks like its not going to be pushed through as fast as CNOC hoped.
They suggested Rogers response by today, and CNOC's further response by Wed. CRTC has instead decided to leave comments open til Dec 10th. Not as quick a fix as we hoped. |
|
|
|
said by resa1983:Looks like its not going to be pushed through as fast as CNOC hoped.
They suggested Rogers response by today, and CNOC's further response by Wed. CRTC has instead decided to leave comments open til Dec 10th. Not as quick a fix as we hoped. Looks like they ignored point 10 completely 10. Due to the urgent nature of this application, CNOC is also requesting that the Commission dispense with the usual form and timing requirements associated with applications filed under Part I of the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedures in this instance. Instead, CNOC requests that the Commission treat this letter as a complete application and abridge the schedule for the filing of comments by Rogers (and any interested parties) and reply by CNOC. More specifically, CNOC proposes that the Commission require Rogers and any interested parties to file comments with the Commission (serving them on all relevant parties) with respect to this application by no later than 8:00 PM on Monday, November 12, 2012, with CNOCs reply to follow on Wednesday, November 14, 2012. Not looking good at all |
|
HiVolt Premium Member join:2000-12-28 Toronto, ON |
to resa1983
Oh, I hadn't noticed that... Seriously can't someone call the CRTC and say wtf, look at it, its really simple issue and fix? |
|
|
No. The CRTC has procedures in place and written exceptions for emergency cases (specific telecom situations). As much as it would be nice to hit a button and press them for immediate answers, at the same time there needs to be order to the decisions.
And also, CNOCs suggested time frames were way too short. Should have shot for Tuesday or Wednesday at the earliest for comment filing. |
|
|
to HiVolt
One does not simply call the CRTC. They are the biggest pain in the *&^%*( to get a hold of (someone competent) and also they have NO idea what they are doing. That and they don't actually do anything but push paper around. |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-13 9:44 am
said by cidknee0:One does not simply call the CRTC. They are the biggest pain in the *&^%*( to get a hold of (someone competent) and also they have NO idea what they are doing. That and they don't actually do anything but push paper around. Actually, you're wrong there. Jason called them last year to find out the status of our non-compliance complaint against Rogers. It had been dragging for a while without hearing anything and we wanted to know whether it was still being processed, or being worked on. |
|
|
to resa1983
said by resa1983:Looks like its not going to be pushed through as fast as CNOC hoped.
They suggested Rogers response by today, and CNOC's further response by Wed. CRTC has instead decided to leave comments open til Dec 10th. Not as quick a fix as we hoped. According to Peter Nowak the CRTC is expediting it, just not as much as CNOC wanted. He's saying Rogers is to reply by the end of this week, with CNOC's rebuttal by the end of next week. It's a short paragraph about 1/3 of the way down the article. » wordsbynowak.com/2012/11 ··· nternet/ |
|
resa1983 Premium Member join:2008-03-10 North York, ON |
resa1983
Premium Member
2012-Nov-13 10:46 am
Yeah.. I tweeted him about that, and he's emailing me the CRTC order now. |
|
dm1336 join:2011-08-07 Scarborough, ON |
dm1336
Member
2012-Nov-14 10:53 pm
CRTC deadline date has been changed to Nov 16th. It's looking good so far. |
|
HiVolt Premium Member join:2000-12-28 Toronto, ON |
HiVolt
Premium Member
2012-Nov-15 12:13 pm
said by dm1336:CRTC deadline date has been changed to Nov 16th. It's looking good so far. Well look at that... Someone there realized the issue... Not bad! |
|