Subject: 1-800 problems for weeks now (FIDO)

This message is being written to all future and present FIDO customers:

For the past few weeks now I have randomly been inconvenienced by hour
long network disruptions, specifically related to the ability to
connect to toll-free numbers within Canada. Twice, in the past seven
days, I have contacted either a rep or supervisor at FIDO about this
problem, and in both instances I was advised that the shoddy service
I'm experiencing is due to Rogers modifying the FIDO network.

In addition to the above FIDO does not feel that there is a need to
compensate/credit their customers for service disruptions of the sort.
During the periods when I was unable to reach my party via their
toll-free lines, I was forced to tack down their local number and pay
for the calls myself. I have discussed this extensively with FIDO and
have continually been directed to read the clause in the "Service
Contract" which excludes them from any responsibility for technical
difficulties experienced by "The Customer".

Given that my FIDO number is printed on all of my business cards and
well known by my clients, I am unfortunately stuck with this number for
an indefinite period. My advise to others is simply to investigate the
companies which you will be contracting with, and stay the heck away
from these jokers at FIDO. It's marketed by dogs for a reason!

Cheers!

---

› See More: Subject: 1-800 problems for weeks now (FIDO)

[email protected] wrote:

> Given that my FIDO number is printed on all of my business cards and
> well known by my clients, I am unfortunately stuck with this number for
> an indefinite period.


If you review earlier posts to this newsgroup, you will find that
there has been an agreement among cellular providers to allow customers
to keep their numbers should they switch providers.


The thread is called, "Cell phone number portability at last ?"


Here is a news article linked in that thread:

http://yahoo.reuters.com/newsArticle...toryID=8258158


If you stick it out, you may be able to leave Fido without losing
your #...



ttyl,
Amur_

[email protected] wrote:
> For the past few weeks now I have randomly been inconvenienced by hour
> long network disruptions, specifically related to the ability to
> connect to toll-free numbers within Canada.

This month's invoice in Montréal included an insert apologizing in
advance for any network disruptions as a result of integration of Fido
into Rogers.

I was surprised they would send it out in montreal so soon since we're
scheduled for the merging of networks in end fo summer early fall.

My guess is that disruptions are not isolated cases and the fact that
they are warning montreal customers already means that we can expect bad
things later on.

Once we are fully on Roger's network, the network will be more stable.
(albeit probably lesser quality).

Lets face it, Rogers and Microcell didn't build their networks over a
period of 8 months. Merging the two in 8 months is a monumental task and
it si a given that the merged networks won't be optimised, espcially
since Rogers's own network wasn't great quality to begin with.

the agreement is to have a plan in place by Sept '05. By the time the plan
is implemented you could be two years down the road, not the kind of time
frame the original poster would like I'm sure.

G M

"Amur_" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Given that my FIDO number is printed on all of my business cards and
>> well known by my clients, I am unfortunately stuck with this number for
>> an indefinite period.
>
>
> If you review earlier posts to this newsgroup, you will find that there
> has been an agreement among cellular providers to allow customers to keep
> their numbers should they switch providers.
>
>
> The thread is called, "Cell phone number portability at last ?"
>
>
> Here is a news article linked in that thread:
>
> http://yahoo.reuters.com/newsArticle...toryID=8258158
>
>
> If you stick it out, you may be able to leave Fido without losing your
> #...
>
>
>
> ttyl,
> Amur_

My concern is primarily with the direction FIDO has decided to take
towards customer care. I understand that large scale mergers can take
time; the problem, however, arises when "The Customer" is left to
pay for these indefinite service deficiencies in the process.

Amur_, thanks for the link to the discussions concerning "porting"
one's cel # over to a different carrier. I was not aware that this
was now possible, or in the process of becoming so. In fact, when I
spoke with a Roger's rep at one of their outlets last month I was not
informed of this feature even being considered. I will peruse the link
you provided and see if I can benefit from the content found within.

JF Mezei, I was advised of this "notification insert" being
included in May's bill (I believe) but as I'm one who is accustomed
to "junk" being sent with my bills I most likely pitched it. Had
they printed the info directly on the invoice either myself or my
accountant would have probably stood a better shot at catching it.
Regardless, at the end of the day it still boils down to the fact I am
now paying a premium for a deficient service. I wonder who I should
attempt to contact above the supervisor to square out this problem?
Then again, my time spent fighting an issue of this nature is probably
more valuable then say a 10% savings ($15/mo) on my monthly bill.
Voicing one's opinion in a public forum, in my opinion, carriers
greater weight as it is freely viewable by those who "traverse"
their Googled FIDO queries.

Cheers, and thanks for your comments Gentlemen.

G M wrote:
> the agreement is to have a plan in place by Sept '05. By the time
the plan
> is implemented you could be two years down the road, not the kind of
time
> frame the original poster would like I'm sure.
>
> G M
>
> "Amur_" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%[email protected]...
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> Given that my FIDO number is printed on all of my business cards
and
> >> well known by my clients, I am unfortunately stuck with this
number for
> >> an indefinite period.
> >
> >
> > If you review earlier posts to this newsgroup, you will find that
there
> > has been an agreement among cellular providers to allow customers
to keep
> > their numbers should they switch providers.
> >
> >
> > The thread is called, "Cell phone number portability at last ?"
> >
> >
> > Here is a news article linked in that thread:
> >
> >
http://yahoo.reuters.com/newsArticle...toryID=8258158
> >
> >
> > If you stick it out, you may be able to leave Fido without losing
your
> > #...
> >
> >
> >
> > ttyl,
> > Amur_

In message <[email protected]>
[email protected] wrote:

>Amur_, thanks for the link to the discussions concerning "porting"
>one's cel # over to a different carrier. I was not aware that this
>was now possible, or in the process of becoming so. In fact, when I
>spoke with a Roger's rep at one of their outlets last month I was not
>informed of this feature even being considered. I will peruse the link
>you provided and see if I can benefit from the content found within.

It's not so much that they're considering it, but rather, that the CRTC
is ramming it down the carriers' throats.

And it's about time.


--
FORTY-SEVEN MILLION LOSE LOTTERY
One winner declared "statistical aberration"

Actually it was the carriers that initiated it, not the CRTC. I'm sure they
realized it was coming and just decided to get it over with, or they think
they have something to gain.

G M

"DevilsPGD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Amur_, thanks for the link to the discussions concerning "porting"
>>one's cel # over to a different carrier. I was not aware that this
>>was now possible, or in the process of becoming so. In fact, when I
>>spoke with a Roger's rep at one of their outlets last month I was not
>>informed of this feature even being considered. I will peruse the link
>>you provided and see if I can benefit from the content found within.
>
> It's not so much that they're considering it, but rather, that the CRTC
> is ramming it down the carriers' throats.
>
> And it's about time.
>
>
> --
> FORTY-SEVEN MILLION LOSE LOTTERY
> One winner declared "statistical aberration"