Computers & Electronics

TekSavy demands refunds from internet suppliers

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 30th, 2020 12:28 pm
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Sep 7, 2004
6588 posts
2953 upvotes
West GTEH!
badOne wrote: with recent layoffs and now this, i wonder if teksavvy is in big trouble.
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.
playnicee1 wrote: 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!
ShocWave wrote: 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...
Maybe it's time to bailout of Teksavvy.
I started to look for other options after the email about the 2nd Price increase this year.
😎
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 25, 2004
3013 posts
1638 upvotes
London
PatK621 wrote: 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.
start has been running fibre in London they don't use the polls at all. they been doing all underground wiring. its funny to how bell makes it sound like you have to totally dig a street up to run fibre but start didn't have to dig up my street to put fibre in. they dug a couple tiny holes at the corner of the street and a machine drilled under the ground to put conduit in then start just fished there wire though that u hardly enough knew they were there doing anything.

rogers and bell though also stopped using the polls years ago here. sometime back in the mid 90s bell and rogers moved the the wires underground on my street.
Sr. Member
Jan 12, 2017
572 posts
205 upvotes
@aaron158

Downtown Toronto already has hydro tubes. Great for urban centres, but wiring underground past cow pastures is not on. Slash dot wraps this up with some great comments regarding the direction, ultimate resolution and meaningful insight.
Last edited by PatK621 on Sep 14th, 2020 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 28, 2012
1879 posts
1020 upvotes
Kanata, ON
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.
Mine went up $5 this spring, then received the notice for another $5 in October. I sent TekSavvy an email asking if this latest $5 decision will be reversed yesterday, so I'll update here if I receive a response.

Same boat here as well regarding rates. It would be cheaper for me to go with Virgin ($50 25/10mbps) and get slightly faster speeds than TekSavvy ($51 15/1mbps).
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 25, 2003
16327 posts
4864 upvotes
Markham
MarvinMartian wrote: Mine went up $5 this spring, then received the notice for another $5 in October. I sent TekSavvy an email asking if this latest $5 decision will be reversed yesterday, so I'll update here if I receive a response.

Same boat here as well regarding rates. It would be cheaper for me to go with Virgin ($50 25/10mbps) and get slightly faster speeds than TekSavvy ($51 15/1mbps).
might as well jump to Virgin Internet now
$10 off per month for the 25/10 ( 1 year)
virgin-mobile-virgin-home-internet-100- ... v-2402183/
96TB Mediasonic H82-SU3S2 / 72TB Raid 50 on Mediasonic H8R2-SU3S2
48TB Node 304 / i5-3570 / Server 2016 Essentials
12TB HP Mediasmart EX 495 (E8400, 3.0GHZ, 4GB Mushkin), with Server 2016 Essentials
16TB Qnap TS-459 Pro
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 31, 2017
6729 posts
2972 upvotes
MarvinMartian wrote: Mine went up $5 this spring, then received the notice for another $5 in October. I sent TekSavvy an email asking if this latest $5 decision will be reversed yesterday, so I'll update here if I receive a response.

Same boat here as well regarding rates. It would be cheaper for me to go with Virgin ($50 25/10mbps) and get slightly faster speeds than TekSavvy ($51 15/1mbps).
wow you're getting killed on ISP rates over in Kanata. for that price people in GTA are getting 150Mbps speeds for 12months.
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2011
36363 posts
22502 upvotes
Center of Universe
badOne wrote: wow you're getting killed on ISP rates over in Kanata. for that price people in GTA are getting 150Mbps speeds for 12months.
I'm in Kanata and paying $43 for $75/10 with Ebox.
Lots of options at my address...
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
6760 posts
1378 upvotes
Peterborough, Ontari…
vkizzle wrote: I'm in Kanata and paying $43 for $75/10 with Ebox.
Lots of options at my address...
Are you actually getting 75 Mb/s consistently?
When I had cable internet the speeds were constatly up and down - mostly down.
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2011
36363 posts
22502 upvotes
Center of Universe
krs wrote: Are you actually getting 75 Mb/s consistently?
When I had cable internet the speeds were constatly up and down - mostly down.
Speeds have been consistent from day one.
Wife and I are both WFH and are always on video conference without any hiccups.

Before kids started school, they were streaming YouTube and Netflix all day, using a terabyte a month.
Newbie
Feb 11, 2018
52 posts
16 upvotes
Qc
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.
Pretty much sums it all up right now. The FCA dismissed the appeal because the big three would not give them the relevant documents to prove their claims, we all know it's a BS claim and creative accounting, so now the big three have gone to whine at the Fed. Cabinet to try and get them to tell the crtc to not lower the prices they sell to TPIA's. It's now up to us to make sure wankers like Minister Navdeep Bains knows we do not approve them acting like Pai from the FCC and to stop being a sell out.

https://www.thestar.com/business/2020/0 ... -hike.html

Minister Navdeep Bains is spouting the same BS as Pai in the FCC that he is acting in the best interest of us all by promoting competition and "rural development", lol yeah sure, and that, "retail prices should be raised, specifically to protect incumbent investments."

The only thing Bains is doing is trying to protect the big 3's monopoly.
Sr. Member
Jan 12, 2017
572 posts
205 upvotes
So here it is CRTC grants incumbents’ stay request regarding lowered wholesale rates. the CRTC has granted another stay on the lowered wholesale rates, which means that the CRTC won’t enforce the rates until its review process is finished and even then the monopolistic companies could also appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision to the Supreme Court. Sadly not to be settled soon.

Kiss your hope of any meaningful competition for internet services goodbye.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
10346 posts
2285 upvotes
Victoria
If the CRTC/Government of Canada really wants to force sharing of the last mile in order to foster (artificial?) competition, they really need to come up with a tighter resolution process. I fully expect the incumbents to do what they do. They spend (billions?) building and maintain the wired infrastructure. It's easily the most costly part of bringing internet to peoples homes. It's why we don't have much competition. It's damned hard to spend billions on a wired network for a piece of the pie.

Still, if the best the government can come up with is forcing the incumbents to share their infrastructure with competitors, they need a much better system for resolving conflicts. The incumbents are really good at dragging everything from disputes. From their old tactics of slightly changing their speed packages to force new prices on TPIAs (or restart price resolutions) or what we're seeing now. If the incumbents can drag everything through disputes for years on end, what's the point?

Either that or spend billions building a government built network, and they lease it to competitors themselves. What's another 10 or 20 billion with our deficit as big as it is :)
Deal Addict
Nov 30, 2003
2678 posts
992 upvotes
Nunavut
zod wrote: If the CRTC/Government of Canada really wants to force sharing of the last mile in order to foster (artificial?) competition, they really need to come up with a tighter resolution process. I fully expect the incumbents to do what they do. They spend (billions?) building and maintain the wired infrastructure. It's easily the most costly part of bringing internet to peoples homes. It's why we don't have much competition. It's damned hard to spend billions on a wired network for a piece of the pie.

Still, if the best the government can come up with is forcing the incumbents to share their infrastructure with competitors, they need a much better system for resolving conflicts. The incumbents are really good at dragging everything from disputes. From their old tactics of slightly changing their speed packages to force new prices on TPIAs (or restart price resolutions) or what we're seeing now. If the incumbents can drag everything through disputes for years on end, what's the point?

Either that or spend billions building a government built network, and they lease it to competitors themselves. What's another 10 or 20 billion with our deficit as big as it is :)
Don't forget the incumbents didn't build these billion dollar networks all on their own, lots and lots of help/subsidies from the government made that happen and continue to do so today

No one will ever be able to come in and build a new network to compete with the big guys, the government will not subsidize running the same wires thru cities and to our homes, the big push right now is getting the entire country online so huge incentives being handed out right now to entice them to build out to more rural areas, if the government wasn't handing out this free money they would never do it

I'm also a firm believer that there should only be one wire run to my house and any company should have the ability to offer me their services over it

So the best solution I have heard which was done in Australia, is to break up the companies and split them into 2 separate entities, one which is the wholesale access to the network and anyone can purchase from them, they maintain and build the network, the other is the actual internet service that sells to customers, the brand that consumers see

The internet is too important for it's access to be controlled by companies as large as Rogers and Bell, especially considering all of the interests that they own (media)
Sr. Member
Nov 18, 2004
504 posts
148 upvotes
Toronto
Eldorado wrote: Don't forget the incumbents didn't build these billion dollar networks all on their own, lots and lots of help/subsidies from the government made that happen and continue to do so today
I hear this alot - what subsidies did/does the government give?
Sr. Member
Jan 12, 2017
572 posts
205 upvotes
zod wrote: spend billions building a government built network, and they lease it to competitors themselves. What's another 10 or 20 billion with our deficit as big as it is :)
This. It's the new railway across the country.
The internet is too important for it's access to be controlled by companies as large as Rogers and Bell, especially considering all of the interests that they own (media)
Couldn't agree more.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
6760 posts
1378 upvotes
Peterborough, Ontari…
barold wrote: I hear this alot - what subsidies did/does the government give?
I was wondering about that as well.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
10346 posts
2285 upvotes
Victoria
Eldorado wrote: Don't forget the incumbents didn't build these billion dollar networks all on their own, lots and lots of help/subsidies from the government made that happen and continue to do so today

No one will ever be able to come in and build a new network to compete with the big guys, the government will not subsidize running the same wires thru cities and to our homes, the big push right now is getting the entire country online so huge incentives being handed out right now to entice them to build out to more rural areas, if the government wasn't handing out this free money they would never do it

I'm also a firm believer that there should only be one wire run to my house and any company should have the ability to offer me their services over it

So the best solution I have heard which was done in Australia, is to break up the companies and split them into 2 separate entities, one which is the wholesale access to the network and anyone can purchase from them, they maintain and build the network, the other is the actual internet service that sells to customers, the brand that consumers see

The internet is too important for it's access to be controlled by companies as large as Rogers and Bell, especially considering all of the interests that they own (media)
I agree with the one wire thing, which is why I think the government should build their own network (or buy out one of the existing networks).

Regardless if they paid full freight, the Cableco's/Telco's of this country did pay billions and billions to create the wired network, and maintain the network. I'm sure the government pitched in for rural here and there, but it seems to me the bulk was paid by the incumbents. I used to think here in BC that Telus had bought BC Tel as a crown corp, but then I found out BC Tel wasn't a crown corp. Which I guess is moot because now they're spending billions creating a fibre network in Western Canada. I think Bell is also trying to create a fibre network out East?

I stand by my line, that forcing the incumbents (who are have paid and are paying for the bulk of their infrastricture) isn't going to work. Your asking them to share with their own competition. That's never going to truly be extra competition.

I think we'll have to leave it to agree that a neutral 3rd party (perhaps the government) should build a national fibre network, and lease access to anyone that wants to sell internet over it.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
6760 posts
1378 upvotes
Peterborough, Ontari…
zod wrote: I think we'll have to leave it to agree that a neutral 3rd party (perhaps the government) should build a national fibre network, and lease access to anyone that wants to sell internet over it.
I think it's far too late for that.

Look at the reality - initially internet connectivity was available over existing telco copper lines, first via dial-up modems and then via DSL.
Big step forward with DSL where one could be on the phone and on the net at the same time over the same copper pair.
Then the cable companies got involved, made their one way cable TV a two way pipe and offered much faster internet connectivity than the telcos could via DSL.
So for the "non-cable"providers to play in the game,they had to come up with something as good or better - enter fiber connectivity, either a fiber pipe directly to the home or where that wasnot feasible, fiber to a common distribution point and then the existing copper pairs for the last few meters.
I'm in a small Ontario city, less than 50,000 population, living in a well established neighbourhood. I'm sure this area wasn't at the top of the list to dig up the area to install fiber, but that was done about 4 1/2 years ago.
In bigger cities probably well before that.
That's when the "neutral 3rd party" supported with some government legislation should have been digging up the roads to install fiber.

Now even Teksavvy is putting in their own fiber network in Chatham and area - I doubt if they would consider leasing out their fiber infrastructure to one of their competitors at a reasonable rate.
Deal Addict
Nov 21, 2014
2078 posts
3171 upvotes
Atlantic
Eldorado wrote: Don't forget the incumbents didn't build these billion dollar networks all on their own, lots and lots of help/subsidies from the government made that happen and continue to do so today
Let's be honest here - all large corporations in all industries have "help" from the government in the form of subsidies, grants and tax breaks etc. E.g. Loblaws got a grant for 12M for refrigerators. https://globalnews.ca/news/5145773/cath ... w-fridges/

What makes the incumbent telecoms different?

From a tax payer's perspective, I have to agree it sucks. But what are you going to do? The Canadian government has made poor policy decisions for decades.....difficult for them to fix this and reverse it in this current age.

If the government had half a brain, they would have set up partnerships with the incumbents to build out the last mile infrastructure AND take an equity stake in the said infrastructure....as opposed to just throwing the money away as "grants" or tax breaks to the telecom while receiving nothing.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 28, 2005
6760 posts
1378 upvotes
Peterborough, Ontari…
EasyCompany251 wrote: Let's be honest here - all large corporations in all industries have "help" from the government in the form of subsidies, grants and tax breaks etc. E.g. Loblaws got a grant for 12M for refrigerators. https://globalnews.ca/news/5145773/cath ... w-fridges/
You can't just generalize by quoting some measly subsidy to Loblaws, which btw benefits us all by reducing carbon emissions.

If Bell or anyone else had received subsidies for the installation of their fiber network, I'm sure Google would find some evidence of that.
All I'm finding is articles like this where Bell is spending 4 Billion per year puttin in fiber in their territory
https://www.lightwaveonline.com/fttx/ar ... in-toronto

Maybe someone else has more luck.

Top