Question for those in a Telus fibre town.
What I'm asking is, if you have existing conduit to your suite and the building is labeled as 'construction challenge', can you ask the building manager or building council why no fibre install allowed into the building. If you have to lightly bend their arm behind their back and have them swear to the truth under perjury of law, lets get any funny business exposed. Same thing goes for buildings where management denied fibre access.
If you own a unit in a building that Telus has labeled as
"We are working hard to improve the quality of service where you live. We have carefully considered every option and, at this time, your residence is not eligible for TELUS Fibre due to construction challenges."
have you confirmed it's truly a construction challenge and not a blockage by , with a quiet kickback. Initially, Salmon Arm appears to be #1, with Quesnel coming in second.
I've been looking through the Telus fibre pages and I keep seeing older buildings getting Telus fibre without dispute, but there are many newer buildings that are listed as construction challenge.
You'd think that if a building has conduit up from the central location, that it's be real easy to get fibre to the suite, be it ordered by the owners of the individual units or eventually the whole complex.
-
-
CRTC regulations for MDU's and preventing undue preference. If you are stuck between the full array of Shaw services, and a now barely there Telus (as a new customer in the building), that's an undue preference.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2003/dt2003-45.htm
151. In Decision 99-10, the Commission set out its view that any agreement between a LEC and another party that resulted in the provision of local service to an MDU on an exclusive basis was, prima facie, a violation of subsection 27(2) of the Act. Furthermore, as noted in Decision 99-10, the condition imposed in Decision 97-8, requiring all LECs to ensure that the end-users they served had direct access, under reasonable terms and conditions, to services provided by any other LEC serving in the same area, also requires that a LEC not take any action, either alone or in conjunction with another party, which would preclude such access.
152. In light of the above, the Commission concludes that any arrangement between a LEC and another party, whether written or unwritten, that has the effect of restricting another LEC from accessing and serving end-users in an MDU is unjustly discriminatory, and contrary to the MDU access condition.
153. By contrast, the Commission considers that preferred marketing arrangements could be of benefit to end-users in MDUs and are consistent with a competitive environment. The Commission therefore finds it appropriate to permit preferred marketing arrangements that are limited to the marketing of a LEC's services in an MDU, so long as these arrangements do not have the effect of limiting access by other LECs to the MDU. Another CRTC decision. In this, Bell wanted to wire the building with fibre during construction. They were denied anything beyond the services entrance room. Unless there are easy to access conduits after the completion of the building, only one provider gets to service the building. If there are conduits to access and the building council are assholes who don't allow the unit owners access to the potential competition, it's undue preference.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2014/2014-42.htm
27. The Commission also indicated that it would take such further action as was appropriate, depending on the circumstances of each case, to ensure that all LECs are able to provide telecommunications services in an MDU in accordance with the MDU access condition. In particular, the Commission indicated that it would be prepared to issue an order under section 42 of the Act, subject to such conditions as to compensation or otherwise as the Commission determines to be just and expedient.
28. Further, the Commission set out guidelines to assist building owners and LECs in negotiating just and expedient conditions of access to MDUs. FCC version of no exclusive contracts, that specifically mentions how to term 'keeping out competition with a secret deal'.
http://www.seyfarth.com/dir_docs/news_item/76acbcd1-3e1b-401e-882c-5ae43390b6f8_documentupload.pdf
However, the new FCC rule does not require owners to provide access to cable competitors. Instead, MDU owners may point to, among other things, architectural and engineering issues as the reason why a building cannot be equipped for multiple wiring for multiple providers. The rule simply prevents MDU owners from keeping out competition through the use of exclusivity clauses in cable company service agreements. -
Shaw fights against an exclusive arrangement and wins
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2000/lb000407-2.htm
The Decision of the Commission
In Public Notice CRTC 1997-150, the Commission stated its view that, in the case of a multiple-unit dwelling where it is technically feasible to provide competitive access to individual units, an exclusive contract between the building owner and a BDU would generally constitute an undue preference in contravention of section 9 of the Regulations.
Having reviewed closely all materials submitted by the parties in the matter of this complaint, the Commission, by majority vote, has determined that the facts clearly disclose that Look is conferring an undue preference upon itself, in contravention of section 9 of the Regulations. It is technically feasible to provide competitive entry to the building in question. Given the impact of the exclusive agreement, which is to restrict end-user choice, the Commission finds that the preference conferred by Look upon itself is undue. Accordingly, the Commission directs Look to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that end-users in individual units can be served by the broadcasting distribution undertakings of their choice. Lets not forget when Shaw had the $10 deal for Vancouver city buildings that have Novus fibre, while refusing to give anywhere else the same deal.
http://stopthecap.com/2009/07/28/shaw-cable-launches-price-war-in-vancouver-9-95month-sparks-complaint-from-competitor-novus/
--
Knowledge and curiosity are not crimes and those who are curious should not be treated like criminals. https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
↧