Computers & Electronics

TekSavy demands refunds from internet suppliers

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 30th, 2020 12:28 pm
[OP]
Deal Expert
Feb 9, 2012
17489 posts
4570 upvotes
Toronto

TekSavy demands refunds from internet suppliers

Things could get ugly between TekSavy, Bell and Rogers...

"TekSavvy Solutions Inc. says it's owed tens of millions of dollars in rebates from excessive wholesale internet fees and won't pay more to Bell or Rogers until the balance is settled..."

https://www.toronto.com/news-story/1018 ... suppliers/
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
56 replies
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 1, 2015
1637 posts
930 upvotes
NOYFB
What's coming nextConfused Face

Was with Teksavvy for a very short time. Good impression overall.
plz don't touch my signature.

don't make me less of a human just cause i don't share your "idiotologies".

👮‍♂️👮‍♀️lives matter
Member
Aug 19, 2013
379 posts
317 upvotes
Etobicoke
That's brave but risky. But, I hope they stick it to them. Bell and Rogers are like mafia and best at price gouging. Btw, I have Fido internet service but will rooting for TS.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 31, 2017
6729 posts
2964 upvotes
with recent layoffs and now this, i wonder if teksavvy is in big trouble.
Sr. Member
Jan 12, 2017
566 posts
203 upvotes
badOne wrote: with recent layoffs and now this, i wonder if teksavvy is in big trouble.
Given Teksavvy had to raise their rates to almost non-competitive levels to stay afloat, gives you the idea that customers will start to dry up. The small guys are saying, 'you want real competition', or just a band aide solution to suggest there is no collusion? The monopolies already have a lock on optical fiber speeds, but now they're getting greedy again with TV bundles and their demands for that extra 10% the small guys garnered with quality service.

Another take on this affair.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
10252 posts
2213 upvotes
Victoria
PatK621 wrote: Given Teksavvy had to raise their rates to almost non-competitive levels to stay afloat, gives you the idea that customers will start to dry up. The small guys are saying, 'you want real competition', or just a band aide solution to suggest there is no collusion? The monopolies already have a lock on optical fiber speeds, but now they're getting greedy again with TV bundles and their demands for that extra 10% the small guys garnered with quality service.

Another take on this affair.

I feel real competition would only be another method of delivering the internet. Either a 3rd wired player, better wireless option (when tech gets better), or government build's it's own wired network and leases it out. As long as competition is based on the forced leasing of the last mile from the big players in Canada, it's not going to be competition. They have a vested interest and will always drag their feet and dispute everything. The last mile is the most expensive part of the infrastructure.

That's my thoughts. I never really thought TPIA's were true competition because of how dependent they are on the incumbents
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 15, 2006
3681 posts
760 upvotes
Kingston
zod wrote: I feel real competition would only be another method of delivering the internet. Either a 3rd wired player, better wireless option (when tech gets better), or government build's it's own wired network and leases it out. As long as competition is based on the forced leasing of the last mile from the big players in Canada, it's not going to be competition. They have a vested interest and will always drag their feet and dispute everything. The last mile is the most expensive part of the infrastructure.

That's my thoughts. I never really thought TPIA's were true competition because of how dependent they are on the incumbents
The internet/wireless/tv infrastructure always should have been government owned and leased out to everyone. You would eliminate the power that companies like Bell/Rogers/Telus/Shaw/Cogeco/etc have. These companies have become too powerful and influential and nothing will change as long as they have the power. I understand that they have invested billions over the years into their networks, but so has the government with grants and loans to allow them to expand/improve their infrastructure. Bottom line is that unless a huge powerhouse like Verizon or AT&T enters the market, The Big 5 will continue to own the communications market and hold us hostage.
Sr. Member
Jan 12, 2017
566 posts
203 upvotes
kcorscadden wrote: infrastructure always should have been government owned and leased out to everyone
When government (our representatives) gave land use rights, hydro pole rights, air rights, subsidies, grants and close to a monopolistic infrastructure to select favourites, there was implied obligation to maintain a proper service at cost, 'meaning good paying jobs for all'. Not the profiteering from their position as a monopoly and charging what the market will bare feeding huge bonuses and shareholders advantages. As for the argument of 'Last Mile infrastructure ' ask Teksavvy about that!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 15, 2006
3681 posts
760 upvotes
Kingston
PatK621 wrote: When government (our representatives) gave land use rights, hydro pole rights, air rights, subsidies, grants and close to a monopolistic infrastructure to select favourites, there was implied obligation to maintain a proper service at cost, 'meaning good paying jobs for all'. Not the profiteering from their position as a monopoly and charging what the market will bare feeding huge bonuses and shareholders advantages. As for the argument of 'Last Mile infrastructure ' ask Teksavvy about that!
I didn't say it would be or was perfect, but it would/could have been better than the current system. It's ridiculous that The Big 5 can dictate to the government how it's going to be and deny entry for new competition, especially after all the "free" money these companies received from the government that helped them become the Goliath's that they are today.
Sr. Member
Jan 12, 2017
566 posts
203 upvotes
Governments, local, provincial and federal can still force moving those lines off hydro poles, pulling air rights, not to mention the land all those boxes sit on. The deal they made back in the 50's was controversial at the time, and it looks like there's going to be a reckoning once again, all Canadians need to speak up against this 'Last Mile infrastructure ' and suggest that for the good of the nation, all that copper that leads south is a public asset.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
6689 posts
1334 upvotes
Peterborough, Ontari…
Getting back to the subject matter.....

The article states:
The CRTC's order was stayed last September by the appeal court, meaning the rates charged to independent ISPs didn't change and the big carriers weren't required to pay the rebates.

I don't understand what legal leg TekSavvy has to stand on to demand those rebates - can anyone elaborate?
The article states very clearly that the court decided that the big carriersare not required to pay them.

And btw - didn't Teksavvy charge rates during that time based on the wholesale prices without the rebates they want now?

I found out a couple of weeks ago that Teksavvy is actually putting in their own fiber network in Chatham and area - that must cost a pretty penny.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 20, 2018
5588 posts
4653 upvotes
Big boys should just teksavvy access for non payment

F**k the shit company that's teksavvy
Deal Fanatic
Dec 20, 2018
5588 posts
4653 upvotes
krs wrote: Getting back to the subject matter.....

The article states:
The CRTC's order was stayed last September by the appeal court, meaning the rates charged to independent ISPs didn't change and the big carriers weren't required to pay the rebates.

I don't understand what legal leg TekSavvy has to stand on to demand those rebates - can anyone elaborate?
The article states very clearly that the court decided that the big carriersare not required to pay them.

And btw - didn't Teksavvy charge rates during that time based on the wholesale prices without the rebates they want now?

I found out a couple of weeks ago that Teksavvy is actually putting in their own fiber network in Chatham and area - that must cost a pretty penny.
Tek has been saying that (own fiber) for years... nothing happening. Just hot air like everything they say and tell customers. Garbag company
Deal Addict
Jan 21, 2007
4900 posts
2167 upvotes
Scarborough
krs wrote: The CRTC's order was stayed last September by the appeal court, meaning the rates charged to independent ISPs didn't change and the big carriers weren't required to pay the rebates.

I don't understand what legal leg TekSavvy has to stand on to demand those rebates - can anyone elaborate?
The way it's written is a bit confusing. The following is my understanding of the situation.

In August 2019, the CRTC finalized the wholesale internet rates. In the same decision, the incumbents (Bell, Rogers, etc.) were required to retroactively pay back the wholesale internet providers based on these new rates.

In September 2019, the incumbents filed an appeal to the decision with the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA). As a result of this, the rates temporarily remained unchanged and the payments back to the wholesale providers were delayed until the appeal was ruled on by the FCA.

This week, the FCA dismissed the appeal which means that the previous decision by the CRTC in August 2019 should be in effect. This means that Teksavvy and others should be paid the money owed by Rogers, Bell, etc. now based on the CRTC decision.

There's probably more to the story than what I've mentioned here but based on the above, the appeal is over so Teksavvy should now be owed money. I'm not sure if anything else is preventing them from getting what they're owed though. I'm assuming Teksavvy's made this move though because they think they have a leg to stand on, legally speaking.
Deal Addict
Jan 6, 2006
2666 posts
814 upvotes
Maybe they should built up their own network!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
6689 posts
1334 upvotes
Peterborough, Ontari…
ASharp wrote: The way it's written is a bit confusing. The following is my understanding of the situation.

In August 2019, the CRTC finalized the wholesale internet rates. In the same decision, the incumbents (Bell, Rogers, etc.) were required to retroactively pay back the wholesale internet providers based on these new rates.

In September 2019, the incumbents filed an appeal to the decision with the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA). As a result of this, the rates temporarily remained unchanged and the payments back to the wholesale providers were delayed until the appeal was ruled on by the FCA.

This week, the FCA dismissed the appeal which means that the previous decision by the CRTC in August 2019 should be in effect. This means that Teksavvy and others should be paid the money owed by Rogers, Bell, etc. now based on the CRTC decision.

There's probably more to the story than what I've mentioned here but based on the above, the appeal is over so Teksavvy should now be owed money. I'm not sure if anything else is preventing them from getting what they're owed though. I'm assuming Teksavvy's made this move though because they think they have a leg to stand on, legally speaking.
What you wrote makes actually more sense than what the article says.
The way I read the article is that the FCA dismissed the appeal by Bell and Co. but also ruled that Bell and Co. did not have to provide any rebates.

I assume there are other articles about that FCA decision that would clarify things.

BTW - I keep reading that Teksavvy and other IISP's have sent out price increase notices of$10.- or so effective in October.
I wonder if now, that the wholesale rates will remain at the CRTC August 2019 level, they will retract that increase.
The way it stands right now, it would cost me more to go with Teksavvy Cable internet than with Virgin FTTH, and that would be for poorer service.
[OP]
Deal Expert
Feb 9, 2012
17489 posts
4570 upvotes
Toronto
krs wrote: BTW - I keep reading that Teksavvy and other IISP's have sent out price increase notices of$10.- or so effective in October.
I wonder if now, that the wholesale rates will remain at the CRTC August 2019 level, they will retract that increase.
The way it stands right now, it would cost me more to go with Teksavvy Cable internet than with Virgin FTTH, and that would be for poorer service.
Why do they need an increase in October when they just applied a $5 increase back in May 2020 and let 130 of their staff go?? https://mobilesyrup.com/2020/03/26/teks ... employees/
TekSavvy is looking more and more like a garbage company!
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Sr. Member
Dec 9, 2001
567 posts
274 upvotes
Vancouver
I'm waiting to see what happens. TekSavvy has now become one of the most expensive ISP's in my city. Might jump ship to Lightspeed.ca or something...
Sr. Member
Jan 12, 2017
566 posts
203 upvotes
Phat_cow wrote: Maybe they should built up their own network!
They're busy doing just that; but keep in mind that when Bell asked the regulators about using Hydro poles for wires, there was agreement and when Rogers asked for the same usage, instead of piles of poles and wires everywhere, there was agreement, now competition enters the picture and suddenly there is no agreement?

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Top