Shopping Discussion

TekSavvy wants CRTC to approve lower rates for ISPs amid COVID-19

  • Last Updated:
  • Apr 17th, 2020 7:30 am
[OP]
Deal Expert
Jan 7, 2002
20673 posts
14502 upvotes
Waterloo, ON

TekSavvy wants CRTC to approve lower rates for ISPs amid COVID-19

TekSavvy wants CRTC to approve lower rates for ISPs amid COVID-19
TekSavvy Solutions Inc. is calling on the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission to ease rates for independent internet service providers facing challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Chatham, Ont.-based business says independent ISPs already pay inflated fees to the big Canadian telecommunications companies, but the pressures of COVID-19 have made those costs impossible to deal with...

The company worries that if the CRTC doesn’t step in, its larger competitors may land advantages to their retail services through the uneven application of stricter COVID-19 procedures.
See also on DSLReports: Pushing back on unfair rates and technician deployment delays
veni, vidi, Visa
35 replies
Sr. Member
Aug 12, 2017
601 posts
145 upvotes
Mississauga
Interesting, first Teksavvy takes Bell and Rogers to court over anti piracy measures and now it wants them to cut the rates.
I would say that Teksavvy can not have it both ways, either it supports piracy or cooperates with big providers that could lead to lower rates.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 20, 2009
3876 posts
2020 upvotes
Toronto
As always - proud to be a TSI customer since the days of Rocky (who is now out of the picture, and whose brother now runs the company).
Personally, I'm saddened here at RFD when I see how ignorant some users are about how the system actually works, and the significant legal expense TSI has taken to fight for change over the last couple of decades.
So many of the other wholesalers are nothing but vultures, investing next to nothing to fight the bigger picture, thus seducing consumers who care nothing more than their bottom line (small picture).

The complaints TSI has have around since forever, because the system has always ridiculously favoured the incumbents, whom all new installations have to go through.
The incumbents, in turn, go out of their way to make the installation part of the experience a nightmare for many customers who switch from the bigs.
Both federal governing parties (Libs and Cons) talk the big talk about helping consumers, but legislatively stick to the status quo.
The CRTC, if used honestly and justly, could easily make significant changes that would benefit consumers, but is stuck in a regulatory capture quagmire that is committed to all bark and little bite.
They act nothing more than an as a buffer, delaying real change for as long as possible, thus allowing the bigs to keep cashing in massively.

In the Covid era, many Canadians will be massively screwed over. My only hope is that many wake up and smell the coffee, and demand real change over rhetoric.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
14881 posts
15729 upvotes
Oakville
discostar wrote: Interesting, first Teksavvy takes Bell and Rogers to court over anti piracy measures and now it wants them to cut the rates.
I would say that Teksavvy can not have it both ways, either it supports piracy or cooperates with big providers that could lead to lower rates.
They have nothing to do with each other.
[OP]
Deal Expert
Jan 7, 2002
20673 posts
14502 upvotes
Waterloo, ON
discostar wrote: Interesting, first Teksavvy takes Bell and Rogers to court over anti piracy measures and now it wants them to cut the rates.
Teksavvy has always been an advocate for network neutrality. That's a concept that's anti-ethical to bHell and Robbers due to their ownership of media companies., not to mention their boundless greed.
veni, vidi, Visa
Sr. Member
Aug 12, 2017
601 posts
145 upvotes
Mississauga
bylo wrote: Teksavvy has always been an advocate for network neutrality. That's a concept that's anti-ethical to bHell and Robbers due to their ownership of media companies., not to mention their boundless greed.
Teksavvy has always been advocate for piracy. Network neutrality has nothing to do with it.
It is pathetic that Teksavvy supports pirates to use their service to steal from Bell, Rogers, Netflix and others and then wants special low rates for their customers.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 20, 2009
3876 posts
2020 upvotes
Toronto
discostar wrote: Teksavvy has always been advocate for piracy. Network neutrality has nothing to do with it.
It is pathetic that Teksavvy supports pirates to use their service to steal from Bell, Rogers, Netflix and others and then wants special low rates for their customers.
Teksavvy has been firm in their belief that those running the pipes should not have an invested interest in the content of such pipes. When I turn on my water tap, should the water utility be responsible for me drowning someone with said water?
[OP]
Deal Expert
Jan 7, 2002
20673 posts
14502 upvotes
Waterloo, ON
shikotee wrote: Teksavvy has been firm in their belief that those running the pipes should not have an invested interest in the content of such pipes.
+1
When I turn on my water tap, should the water utility be responsible for me drowning someone with said water?
Consider the phone system. If I use a bHell telephone line or cellphone plan to commit a crime, is bHell responsible?

Using discostar's "logic" bHell is a "supporter" of crime. Where's his criticism of bHell for that?
veni, vidi, Visa
Sr. Member
Aug 12, 2017
601 posts
145 upvotes
Mississauga
shikotee wrote: Teksavvy has been firm in their belief that those running the pipes should not have an invested interest in the content of such pipes. When I turn on my water tap, should the water utility be responsible for me drowning someone with said water?
Until Teksavvy provides their own infrastructure and has more customers than Bell or Rogers maybe then someone should care about their firm belief.
For now it is providing service using Bell’s or Rogers infrastructure so it should respect their wishes and help them fight piracy as it puts financial pressure on them as well when the are losing their content in TekSavvy’s pipeline.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 20, 2009
3876 posts
2020 upvotes
Toronto
discostar wrote: Until Teksavvy provides their own infrastructure and has more customers than Bell or Rogers maybe then someone should care about their firm belief.
For now it is providing service using Bell’s or Rogers infrastructure so it should respect their wishes and help them fight piracy as it puts financial pressure on them as well when the are losing their content in TekSavvy’s pipeline.
Indeed - you are indicating the biggest problem in debating this subject - the dumbing down of complex issues into "ours" and "theirs".
As if these magical companies have not heavily benefited from monopolistic regulatory favours and government subsidies throughout their histories.
As if these magical companies do not have specific government protections such as Telecommunications and Broadcasting Acts that prohibit foreign competition.
My natural assumption, when I hear someone bleating mindless Big 3 talking points is that there is an extremely high probability he/she has money invested in big 3 stock.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 11, 2007
14881 posts
15729 upvotes
Oakville
discostar wrote: Teksavvy has always been advocate for piracy. Network neutrality has nothing to do with it.
It is pathetic that Teksavvy supports pirates to use their service to steal from Bell, Rogers, Netflix and others and then wants special low rates for their customers.
[...] Or do you work for Bell/Rogers? Piracy is a small issue in general, and not the main issue TSI is fighting for. The main issue is fair access to communication infrastructure.
discostar wrote: Until Teksavvy provides their own infrastructure and has more customers than Bell or Rogers maybe then someone should care about their firm belief.
For now it is providing service using Bell’s or Rogers infrastructure so it should respect their wishes and help them fight piracy as it puts financial pressure on them as well when the are losing their content in TekSavvy’s pipeline.
Bell and Rogers will never allow TSI to have their own infrastructure, and it's a stupid idea to even suggest it. Can you imagine tearing up the road every time a new company comes around?
[...] Please do some actual research.
Last edited by Mars2012 on Apr 13th, 2020 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: reported/get your point across without the rudeness
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 20, 2009
3876 posts
2020 upvotes
Toronto
engineered wrote: Bell and Rogers will never allow TSI to have their own infrastructure, and it's a stupid idea to even suggest it. Can you imagine tearing up the road every time a new company comes around?
[...] Please do some actual research.
Teksavvy very much invests in a portion of infrastructure that is needed to offer their services.

It is completely unrealistic, and frankly blatantly stupid to suggest redundant infrastructure must be built when geographic density precludes the ability to financially recoup the costs of such an inefficient setup. Would we want competing companies to build private roads? Obviously not, as it is not logical and is not efficient, and certainly would not service the public good.

The regulatory model used in Canada is basically rubbish.

Who knows - If Convid reaches the point where feds are forced to deploy Emergency Act powers, maybe they'll grow a pair and enforce structural separation by nationalizing (or converting to a "utility") some aspects of internet related infrastructure. In this day and age, access to Internet for all Canadians should be prioritized, much like how the Postal Service was created to level a field that could never ever be levelled as such soley by private interests.
Last edited by Mars2012 on Apr 13th, 2020 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: edit in quote
Member
User avatar
Sep 26, 2011
211 posts
238 upvotes
shikotee wrote: My natural assumption, when I hear someone bleating mindless Big 3 talking points is that there is an extremely high probability he/she has money invested in big 3 stock.
Hey, I have investments in BHell, and yet I trash talk them all the time... :twisted:
Ironically, ever since I became a shareholder a few years back, I've canceled all my longtime BHell services, but maybe I'm among the minority who actually took the advice "if you don't like 'em, buy their stock".
[OP]
Deal Expert
Jan 7, 2002
20673 posts
14502 upvotes
Waterloo, ON
shikotee wrote: It is completely unrealistic, and frankly blatantly stupid to suggest redundant infrastructure must be built when geographic density precludes the ability to financially recoup the costs of such an inefficient setup. Would we want competing companies to build private roads? Obviously not, as it is not logical and is not efficient, and certainly would not service the public good.
It's so unrealistic that rivals bHell and Telus share their LTE infrastructure rather than duplicate it. Moreover bHell/Telus and Robbers have mutual national roaming agreements that allow them to use each others' LTE infrastructures in areas where it makes no sense to duplicate, e.g. Robbers roams on bHell in NL.

Even the incumbents have their limits.
veni, vidi, Visa
Sr. Member
Aug 12, 2017
601 posts
145 upvotes
Mississauga
engineered wrote: [....] Or do you work for Bell/Rogers? Piracy is a small issue in general, and not the main issue TSI is fighting for. The main issue is fair access to communication infrastructure.


Bell and Rogers will never allow TSI to have their own infrastructure, and it's a stupid idea to even suggest it. Can you imagine tearing up the road every time a new company comes around?
[...] Please do some actual research.
I am informed more than you think but I don’t want to talk to you either especially that it was you talking about tearing up the roads as your argument would only go to extreme. It is funny that pro piracy arguments always lead to the extreme cases and nothing in between.
Last edited by Mars2012 on Apr 13th, 2020 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: edit in quote

Top