Telecom notice of consultation 2018-422-1

  • Thread starter CRTC decisions, notices and Orders
  • Start date
C

CRTC decisions, notices and Orders

Guest
Call for comments – Proceeding to establish a mandatory code for Internet services - Online consultation - Public record: 1011-NOC2018-0422

Continue reading...
 

Rednekcowboy

Owner
Staff member
  • other issues that may be appropriate to respond to consumer concerns regarding contracts for Internet services, excluding issues that are outside the scope of this proceeding (see paragraph 45 of this notice for a complete list). These may include issues specific to Internet services that are purchased as part of a bundle of communications services.
If you haven't read what this hearing is for, it has nothing to do with quality of service or issues regarding anything outside billing issues. Everything submitted to the contrary will be summarily ignored.

What is the point then? AND the CRTC already has very detailed regulations in place that cover not only this but also a great deal of other issues. How about they just start enforcing the "Internet Code" that they already have in place versus wasting time, money and energy conducting a bogus proceeding that they won't take any action on anyways??

This is nothing but lip service--a pr "feel good" scam, much like the wireless fiasco they just concluded in which they aren't taking any real action on despite the glaring issues that even the CRTC acknowledged are very prevalent in that sector.
 

Rednekcowboy

Owner
Staff member
I decided to send an email in anyways, as per their page:

There are a number of issues that are going unresolved and enforcement of current CRTC regulations are completely absent.



This is, in large part, due to the hands off approach of the CRTC and the difficulty in submitting complaints to the CRTC directly. The CCTS either has to be granted more teeth and have their scope of issues they can deal with expanded.



I have, in the past, submitted issues to the CCTS and always felt that the person handling my case could care less about my issues and simply did not want to be bothered—that is, if I could even get the CTSC to actually accept my complaint in the first place. I have gotten the “I’m sorry but this issue does not fall within the scope of what we do.” Then, when I go to submit the issue to the CRTC, I am told to file a complaint with the CCTS—that is even if I manage to actually locate a method to file to the CRTC directly, which was difficult before, but since Mr. Scott’s appoint is virtually impossible now.



There are many issues that the CRTC should be dealing with prior to wasting tax-payer money and time on a PR stunt such as this. There is a very detailed set of regulations that already cover the majority of issues that the CRTC is asking the public for submissions about.



The top one is issuing decisions in regards to intevenor fees. Organizations that intercede on behalf of public interest should not have to wait 2+ years to be reimbursed for doing so. This is completely unacceptable and should be the #1 priority of the CRTC. Delaying these decisions is placing an undue hardship on these organizations and smells of a deliberate attempt by the CRTC to force these organizations to close their doors.



The second issue that should be remedied immediately is the issue of access and reasonable tariff rates in order for IISP’s to have access to FTTH. It has gotten to the point that IISP’s can no longer compete and are losing customers in droves simply because the CRTC refuses to deal with the issue in a timely manner.



Thirdly, the CRTC needs to scrutinize the incumbents wholesale pricing schemes when it comes to wholesale tariffs. When the Incumbents can provide their services at a lesser cost to their retail customers than what it is claiming it costs them to provide wholesale access, there is an issue. All anyone at the CRTC do is go to an Incumbent website, call in pretending to be a customer or do a chat with a service rep via the Incumbent website in order to see the current retail price schema the Incumbent has. Yes there are promotions and special offers, but the Incumbent rep will tell you what the “normal” retail price will be once those promotions end. It is not rocket science and simply swallowing what the Incumbents provide as evidence when they submit those schemas is bordering on incompetence and completely unacceptable.



Lastly, but certainly not any less important, is the CRTC needs to actually enforce the regulations it currently has in place. One perfect example is Vmedia. They have a permanent and unauthorized ITMP in place and have had this policy for years. It basically cripples any service other than their own IPTV offering during primetime, without exception, or tier a person subscribes to. They do not, as per CRTC regulations, explicitly state in their online TOS which services are impacted and to what extent those services are degraded. Even worse, the Director of Vmedia, Mr. George Burger, continuously appears on public forums and is outright deceptive, often saying they do not have any such ITMP in place or, when he does acknowledge the fact they do have an ITMP in place, he denies any sort of degradation of any services, which is an outright lie. There are numerous complaints about this online all over the place. I have written about it on my forums:



https://canispreports.com/threads/telecom-notice-of-consultation-2018-422-1.3884/



Basically, the CRTC should be proactive and monitoring forums such as the above or DSLR (https://www.dslreports.com/forum/canbroadband) so they have knowledge of such issues. It would only take a few minutes a day for someone to be monitoring these forums for customer complaints.



There is 0 reason for the sole protector of Canadian’s best interest in the telecom industry to be so out of touch with the reality the every day consumer faces. It is time to be proactive and involved from the consumer viewpoint. After all, that is who the CRTC is servicing—the best interests of Canadians, not the best interest of Big Telecom.
I encourage everyone to speak out. You can send an email to the CRTC on this topic here: Code_Internet_Code@crtc.gc.ca
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom