

TSI Marc

Premium Member

join:2006-06-23

Chatham, ON 1 edit 10 recommendations TSI Marc Premium Member [Cable] CRTC - CNOC Part 1 Cable Carrier Services & Update CNOC Part 1 ···DGED.zip

236,259 bytes



It seems as though the majority of customers who experienced prolonged service delays are up and running. There continues to be significant outages still, however response from the vendor has greatly improved and we expect to be back to normal service levels by the end of next week. The improvements to date are in large part due to the persistence of our employees as well as our vendor adding resources to focus on the delays. I want to extend a big thank you to our loyal customers who stuck with us through all of this, and let you know what we are doing to prevent this in the future.



As you know, we believe that the current wholesale model needs to be updated. We need a better structure to be able to avoid service disruptions (like the ones recently experienced by some of our customers) and to be able to improve the experience for TekSavvy customers.



As promised, TekSavvy has been working with other ISPs through Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. to seek changes to the current wholesale model. These changes will ultimately improve the experience for customers of TekSavvy and other competitive ISPs that use the cable network.



Today, CNOC filed an application with the CRTC seeking a wide variety of improvements to the wholesale model that applies to Cable Carriers; Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron.



The application seeks two types of relief:



(1) Specific orders designed to improve a number of practices, procedures and processes followed by the Cable Carriers in providing wholesale services to ISPs such as TekSavvy;



(2) A series of Quality of Service Indicators designed to ensure that Cable Carriers comply with their existing legal duty to meet service intervals for installations, repair and disconnections with the same standards applicable to the Cable Carriers' own retail operations. These Indicators are backed by a Rate Rebate Plan that creates a financial incentive for the Cable Carriers to meet the standards applicable to the Indicators.



The CNOC application will be posted on the CRTC website in the next few days. As with all of these types of applications, resolution will take some time, and the CRTC will let us know of the date. If you have views on the application, you are welcome to intervene before the CRTC resolution deadline by following the process also described on the CRTC website.



We will continue to post updates on the status of this, including links to the application once they are available on the CRTC web site. Hey Gang,It seems as though the majority of customers who experienced prolonged service delays are up and running. There continues to be significant outages still, however response from the vendor has greatly improved and we expect to be back to normal service levels by the end of next week. The improvements to date are in large part due to the persistence of our employees as well as our vendor adding resources to focus on the delays. I want to extend a big thank you to our loyal customers who stuck with us through all of this, and let you know what we are doing to prevent this in the future.As you know, we believe that the current wholesale model needs to be updated. We need a better structure to be able to avoid service disruptions (like the ones recently experienced by some of our customers) and to be able to improve the experience for TekSavvy customers.As promised, TekSavvy has been working with other ISPs through Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. to seek changes to the current wholesale model. These changes will ultimately improve the experience for customers of TekSavvy and other competitive ISPs that use the cable network.Today, CNOC filed an application with the CRTC seeking a wide variety of improvements to the wholesale model that applies to Cable Carriers; Cogeco, Rogers, Shaw and Videotron.The application seeks two types of relief:(1) Specific orders designed to improve a number of practices, procedures and processes followed by the Cable Carriers in providing wholesale services to ISPs such as TekSavvy;(2) A series of Quality of Service Indicators designed to ensure that Cable Carriers comply with their existing legal duty to meet service intervals for installations, repair and disconnections with the same standards applicable to the Cable Carriers' own retail operations. These Indicators are backed by a Rate Rebate Plan that creates a financial incentive for the Cable Carriers to meet the standards applicable to the Indicators.The CNOC application will be posted on the CRTC website in the next few days. As with all of these types of applications, resolution will take some time, and the CRTC will let us know of the date. If you have views on the application, you are welcome to intervene before the CRTC resolution deadline by following the process also described on the CRTC website.We will continue to post updates on the status of this, including links to the application once they are available on the CRTC web site.

xdrag

join:2005-02-18

North York, ON xdrag Member Amazing, good luck. Hope this puts bad installs and lengthy tickets behind us and on par with retail customers.

SimonJB

join:2004-11-19

Manotick, ON SimonJB to TSI Marc

Member to TSI Marc

Does CRTC have to reply / acknowledge within a certain timeframe? Is there an official way for members of the public to support this?

notfred

join:2012-09-15 notfred to TSI Marc

Member to TSI Marc

Wow, reading the footnotes really highlights how bad things got. I wonder how many of the # are TSI? I suspect a lot but not all



diskace

EBOX CEO

Premium Member

join:2002-02-21 diskace to SimonJB

Premium Member to SimonJB

Looks like Chris did a good job. Hopefully things will move more seriously.



cnocccc

@24.114.95.x cnocccc Anon Diskace, is Ebox a member of CNOC yet?!?!



HiVolt

Premium Member

join:2000-12-28

Toronto, ON HiVolt to TSI Marc

Premium Member to TSI Marc

Wow, what an excellent submission, CNOC hasn't held anything back!



This is what TPIA has needed since its inception. It's been a fly-by-night operation by the cable carriers with inferior levels of service and support.



Shame it took so many outages and frustrated customers over the past few years, I hope the CRTC sees it for what it is forces the implementation of all of it, because it's all needed and justified! Cable carriers have gotten away with murder so far, with no consequences!

jibby

join:2008-03-31 jibby to TSI Marc

Member to TSI Marc





There's a lot of seriously eye-opening stuff in there (and a lot of stuff we've long suspected but were never confirmed)



here are some of my favs:



Re: Escalations and Master tickets: quote: # reports that this has been its experience with Rogers. Tickets can only be escalated once every 24 hours (up to a third level) and yet escalations do not appear to increase a tickets priority.

41

In # experience with Rogers process associated with multi-fault master tickets, these tickets often obtain no additional priority and follow the same procedure as individual tickets. escalations and master tickets arent treated any differently?



Re: Ticket responses quote: -For example, # reported that Rogers never provides any information relating to a ticket and its resolution unless the information is requested by the ISP. Even when the information is requested, the reply from Rogers is vague or avoids the question altogether. For larger maintenance issues, Rogers never provides clear information.

-For example, # indicated that it never receives updates or resolutions reasons on tickets from Shaw Rogers and Shaw don't even respond to tickets? wow



Re: No Show techs quote: # reported that Rogers only respected 30% of scheduled repair dates and time windows since June 2013.

45

# reported that Shaw technicians did not show up for 34.6% of scheduled repairs since June 2013. Similarly, #

reported a no-show rate of 20% for Rogers repair technicians and of 30% for Cogeco repair technicians during

that same time period. dang that's a lot of reschedules and no-shows!



Re: Billing quote: A Carriers TPIA invoices must be accurate and timely. Unfortunately, there are instances where this is not the case. For example, a CNOC member reported that a Carrier billed the member retroactively for capacity charges three times for the same time periods. Well over a year after these mistakes, the ISP has yet to obtain a correct bill or adjustment. The ISP has requested that the Carrier adjust and correlate the incorrect bills no less than six times. The dollar amount of the required adjustments is approximately $200,000 that's just shady Bravo, Marc & CNOCThere's a lot of seriously eye-opening stuff in there (and a lot of stuff we've long suspected but were never confirmed)here are some of my favs:Re: Escalations and Master tickets:escalations and master tickets arent treated any differently?Re: Ticket responsesRogers and Shaw don't even respond to tickets? wowRe: No Show techsdang that's a lot of reschedules and no-shows!Re: Billingthat's just shady



jmck

formerly 'shaded'

join:2010-10-02

Ottawa, ON jmck Member i wonder if that last one is Start. I know Start had to pay a retroactive bill since since they were already aggregated.

Creports

join:2013-08-22 Creports to TSI Marc

Member to TSI Marc

Very good. Thanks for the update Marc. A fair and efficient wholesale model should be implemented. There's always room for improvement and hopefully it will get better and better.



oceros37

join:2013-07-20

St Thomas, ON oceros37 to TSI Marc

Member to TSI Marc

The CRTC should respond in 24 - 48 hours.



But seriously, this is a huge step in the right direction! Good to hear.

pc8888

join:2011-05-31

estonia pc8888 to TSI Marc

Member to TSI Marc

Marc,



What is the best way to support this application as a joe average internet user?



TakeOffEh

@teksavvy.com 6 recommendations TakeOffEh to TSI Marc

Anon to TSI Marc

I certainly wouldn't state, with absolute certainty, that TekSavvy could or should be absolved of all the problems that have been occurring recently.



But for all the people bitching about TekSavvy's service ... if you read through the Omnibus Application PDF your mind will be blown about how uncooperative the incumbents have been with TPIA. How many things they've been denied access to, and been kept in the dark about.



How TPIA providers have even been able to stay in business with these kinds of handicaps, is a testament to how hard they've worked on behalf of their clientele (and how much the public at large still loathes the incumbents, and want choices).



Teddy Boom

k kudos Received

Premium Member

join:2007-01-29

Toronto, ON Teddy Boom to jmck

Premium Member to jmck

said by jmck: i wonder if that last one is Start. I know Start had to pay a retroactive bill since since they were already aggregated.



Check out this letter spacing analysis:

»forum.cyclingnews.com/sh ··· count=33



And how successful the community was overall:

»forum.cyclingnews.com/sh ··· ?t=18792



Not interested, that is, except for ONE instance. I'm just dying to know who's who on this one: # has provided some IPv6 rollout information to its TPIA customers; CNOC members have not obtained any such information from #, # or #. I noticed several instances where I feel I could identify the CNOC member or incumbent cable company referenced. I'm not too interested in comparing notes and trying to reverse engineer the abridgement though. I do notice that whoever did the abridging did so competently, which is nice. Cycling fans know exactly how badly these things can be handledCheck out this letter spacing analysis:And how successful the community was overall:Not interested, that is, except for ONE instance. I'm just dying to know who's who on this one:

Teddy Boom Teddy Boom to TSI Marc

Premium Member to TSI Marc





I do wonder about a couple of things though..



Operational Separation

I take it that a decision has been made to not press for full operational separation. I assume that is related to CRTC proceedings that came and went before I started following this stuff, and I guess the decision is that trying to go back there won't be helpful to the cause.



If you can say anything on that front, it would be great. Also, if comments from the public to this proceeding were to indicate operational separation is preferable, would that be helpful or is it pointless daydreaming (and possibly a unhelpful distraction)?



DHCP

From this: The seventh order would require the Carriers to provide their TPIA customers daily reports generated during peak hours (e.g., between 8 and 11 P.M. local time) that show the number of IP addresses allocated to DHCP by IP pool and the number of IP addresses actually in use by end-users by IP pool. This would ensure that ISPs can assign adequate IP addresses on the Carrier networks on a sufficiently timely basis to accommodate customer growth and avoid unnecessary service outages. It could be very naive of me, but my understanding has been that incumbents manage their own IP pools centrally, and it seems that centrally managed IP pools for TPIA would be preferable.



Modem Provisioning

*deleted* (I guess anything to be said here is just going to be a non-starter in terms of getting it to actually happen.. As crazy as that is, because TPIAs could easily handle this process on their own without incumbent involvement)



Service Standards

Everything about the quality of service and rate rebate stuff looks fantastic. Well researched. Backed up by reference to prior decisions. Likely to be at least somewhat effective.



That said, I really wonder about the TPIA timeframes for service and installation. It seems that the filing takes a sideways approach to asking for equal treatment on repairs, but nowhere does it ask for the 7 day timeframe for installation be improved. Given all the prior decisions that insist on equal treatment, I don't understand how the 7 days comes about, and why it isn't worth disputing.



Anyway, huge thanks again. I can't imagine how painful drafting something like that is! Thank you for posting Marc, and thank you (and CNOC) for getting this done. A huge undertaking, I'm sure, but so needed!I do wonder about a couple of things though..I take it that a decision has been made to not press for full operational separation. I assume that is related to CRTC proceedings that came and went before I started following this stuff, and I guess the decision is that trying to go back there won't be helpful to the cause.If you can say anything on that front, it would be great. Also, if comments from the public to this proceeding were to indicate operational separation is preferable, would that be helpful or is it pointless daydreaming (and possibly a unhelpful distraction)?From this:It could be very naive of me, but my understanding has been that incumbents manage their own IP pools centrally, and it seems that centrally managed IP pools for TPIA would be preferable.*deleted* (I guess anything to be said here is just going to be a non-starter in terms of getting it to actually happen.. As crazy as that is, because TPIAs could easily handle this process on their own without incumbent involvement)Everything about the quality of service and rate rebate stuff looks fantastic. Well researched. Backed up by reference to prior decisions. Likely to be at least somewhat effective.That said, I really wonder about the TPIA timeframes for service and installation. It seems that the filing takes a sideways approach to asking for equal treatment on repairs, but nowhere does it ask for the 7 day timeframe for installation be improved. Given all the prior decisions that insist on equal treatment, I don't understand how the 7 days comes about, and why it isn't worth disputing.Anyway, huge thanks again. I can't imagine how painful drafting something like that is!



cable4me

@teksavvy.com cable4me Anon Pre-ATPIA having individual DHCP pools probably makes the most sense. Now that everything is connected to the Cableco cloud, probably should manage them centralized like Cableco.



HiVolt

Premium Member

join:2000-12-28

Toronto, ON HiVolt Premium Member I'm wondering how hard it would be to allow TPIA's to have their own DHCP servers, assuming it can be done centrally without having one at each head end..



AkFubar

Admittedly, A Teksavvy Fan

join:2005-02-28

Toronto CAN. AkFubar to TSI Marc

Member to TSI Marc

Re: [Cable] CRTC - CNOC Part 1 Cable Carrier Services & Update Great stuff Marc! All the best to this moving forward. I also think it's high time that internet access is declared an essential service in this country (because it is).



dillyhammer

START me up

Premium Member

join:2010-01-09

Scarborough, ON dillyhammer to TSI Marc

Premium Member to TSI Marc









Marc, it's about fucking time. You guys have been too damn nice for too damn long.



The good people that populate DSLr need to get their backs into this one.



Mike Wow. Bravo!Marc, it's about fucking time. You guys have been too damn nice for too damn long.The good people that populate DSLr need to get their backs into this one.Mike



tekSavvyUser

@teksavvy.com tekSavvyUser Anon Thx Marc and TPIAs as a whole. I do honestly believe Internet access should be considered essential these days, to give just a few examples:

IP phone (please note many people may not be able to afford back ups and cell phones...)

Mail delivery regarding bills...

Notification regarding travel...

One might argue, "oh well we can get around all these with.....", but we can get around not having electricity as well by using candle!



Good luck Marc and count on use if you need us.



Davesnothere

Change is NOT Necessarily Progress

Premium Member

join:2009-06-15

Canada Davesnothere to dillyhammer

Premium Member to dillyhammer

said by dillyhammer: ....You guys have been too damn nice for too damn long....

Well, they TRIED being nice for the last while, and nothing much positive happened.



So eventually it came to THIS.



Also note that Marc gave credit to CNOC in the thread title.



No doubt ALL of CNOC's member companies are behind it, and have contributed to portions of the wording.



Many nights of Tim-Bits and Double-Doubles, fer shoor !



We will absolutely be following THIS one ! Well, they TRIED being nice for the last while, and nothing much positive happened.So eventually it came to THIS.Also note that Marc gave credit to CNOC in the thread title.No doubt ALL of CNOC's member companies are behind it, and have contributed to portions of the wording.Many nights of Tim-Bits and Double-Doubles, fer shoor !We will absolutely be following THIS one !

deal1

join:2010-12-27

Nepean deal1 Member Keep in mind that if the incumbents could competently manage their business the TPIA's wouldn't exist.



rednekcowboy

join:2012-03-21 rednekcowboy to TSI Marc

Member to TSI Marc

Awesome work to CNOC.



Just about every time there is a thread with people complaining about this or that about an IISP, I try to gently remind them that the reason for us switching to an IISP is because we no longer wanted to deal with the BS from the Incumbents. However that being said, just because we switched doesn't mean the BS stopped.



Rather than us dealing with the Incumbents directly, the IISP deals with them and still faces all the same BS we used to. The relationship between Incumbent and IISP is no different that the direct relationship between Incumbent and Direct Customer and in most cases, it's much worse because the IISP's are taking customers away from the Incumbents.



I'm glad CNOC is finally fighting back on this front and demanding that their rights as an IISP are enforced. If the CRTC actually listens, this will mean leaps and bounds in service for everyone--the IISP and their customers.



Great job guys, keep up the good fight!!!



dillyhammer

START me up

Premium Member

join:2010-01-09

Scarborough, ON dillyhammer to deal1

Premium Member to deal1

said by deal1: Keep in mind that if the incumbents could competently manage their business the TPIA's wouldn't exist.



They are competent at running their companies.



It's that competence that makes independents both possible and necessary.



Mike Have you seen the incumbents' quarterlies for the last few years? They're raking in record revenues and profits, paying record dividends year over year, quarter over quarter.They are competent at running their companies.It's that competence that makes independents both possible and necessary.Mike



BACONATOR26

Premium Member

join:2000-11-25

Nepean, ON BACONATOR26 to HiVolt

Premium Member to HiVolt

said by HiVolt: I'm wondering how hard it would be to allow TPIA's to have their own DHCP servers, assuming it can be done centrally without having one at each head end.. Not possible on Rogers end except maybe if they start doing VLANs but they don't want to implement that for wholesale.

BACONATOR26 BACONATOR26 to Teddy Boom

Premium Member to Teddy Boom

said by Teddy Boom: DHCP

From this: The seventh order would require the Carriers to provide their TPIA customers daily reports generated during peak hours (e.g., between 8 and 11 P.M. local time) that show the number of IP addresses allocated to DHCP by IP pool and the number of IP addresses actually in use by end-users by IP pool. This would ensure that ISPs can assign adequate IP addresses on the Carrier networks on a sufficiently timely basis to accommodate customer growth and avoid unnecessary service outages. It could be very naive of me, but my understanding has been that incumbents manage their own IP pools centrally, and it seems that centrally managed IP pools for TPIA would be preferable. It could be very naive of me, but my understanding has been that incumbents manage their own IP pools centrally, and it seems that centrally managed IP pools for TPIA would be preferable. That's the funny part, it looks like with the outages, even on ATPIA Rogers maintains DHCP at every CMTS/node for IISPs even though it could be centrally managed.