New ITMP guidelines and non-compliance framework

The new ITMP guidelines and enforcement framework is in, and its interesting to say the least. On one hand, the CRTC is definitely attempting to make things easier on the consumer, but on the other hand, they just don't take it far enough.

The onus is still on the consumer to make complaints to keep ISPs in check; which means if the consumer doesn't notice it or can't figure out the cause of the problem, the ISP can get away with it.

There are really only 2 upsides to today's release.

1. Clear deadlines for ISPs & complainants to respond to the issue before the CRTC rules whether the ISP is in compliance or not. This is a big step up as it will result in a faster resolution for valid issues. As we all know, Rogers admitted publicly that there was a problem with WoW within a few days of the CRTC asking them to look into it, and instead of immediately responding to the CRTC, they waited for the very last day to file.
   
2. There will be a central & PUBLIC listing for all previous & current ITMP complaints, as well as their status. ISPs (and their Technical Support personnel) can no longer keep these complaints quiet as they were able to before. Users will be able to confirm there's an issue with a program, and tell others about it.
   

Summary

The CRTC still wants users to attempt to work things out with the ISP first, however that's usually useless (as it was in my case), as they give lip service and do nothing while lying to you. The CRTC seems to be relaxing the requirements for filing the complaint as well. Previously, complainants were asked about the technical background (as I was asked what sort of background I had). Now, provided the user previously reported the issue to the ISP, the user can report the issue to the CRTC along with details as to what the ISP's response was, what exactly is happening with the application (ie disconnections in game), and whether its recurring and possible to re-create and under what conditions.

Essentially, when a complaint is made, the CRTC will forward it to the ISP within 15 calendar days, the ISP has 20 calendar days to respond, and the complainant has 10 calendar days to respond to that. The CRTC will then respond to the complainant within 15 days, and if its a valid complaint (or if the ISP couldn't be bothered to respond) the ISP will be be judged as non-compliant.

All ITMP complaints will be posted to the CRTC website 4 times a year, with a summary on each complaint, and whether its been resolved or not. And any ISP found to be non-compliant will immediately have their information posted to the site, along with details of the current non-compliance.

Consequences of non-compliance
The CRTC reserves the right to:

• request more information from either the ISP or the complainant;
  
• request a compliance meeting with the ISP to discuss the complaint in more detail;
  
• send a letter to the ISP outlining corrective measures if it considers that the ISP’s ITMP does not comply with the ITMP policy and/or with the Act;
  
• initiate an on-site inspection or independent third-party audit to obtain additional information;
  
• initiate the issuance of a notice of consultation;[10] and/or
  
• initiate a hearing at which the ISP would have to show cause as to why the Commission should not issue a mandatory order, which the Commission could register with the Federal Court
  
  • the mandatory order would direct the ISP to take corrective actions under section 51 of the Act, and could include partial reimbursement to the customer.

While the CRTC did make a big step forward with these rules, its not sufficient in CGO's opinion, nor it seems in OpenMedia's opinion.

I think one of the next steps the CRTC should make is a redesign of their website as David Ellis stated yesterday in a masterful piece.

Jason & I have been making plans, and that includes working with OpenMedia regarding this issue. Keep an eye on Openmedia.ca or CGO's own little corner provided by Openmedia

Press Release: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/com100/2011/r110922.htm
Policy: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-609.htm

1 in 100

So most of my friends know the worry I & my husband went through in the first year of Nathan's life..

1 in 100 babies will be born with a Congenital Heart Defect. We had 2 in 100. Nathan, and his twin who died in utero. We can only assume he died of a more severe heart defect than what it was discovered Nathan had.

Nathan was born in October 2009. He was diagnosed with a heart murmur at 5 days old at his first appointment at his pediatrician. He was then seen at the hospital by the Chief of Pediatrics 2 weeks later for his circumcision, the Chief of Pediatrics agreed with our pediatrician that Nathan had a murmur, and immediately signed Nathan up to for an appointment with a Dr from Sick Kids which was 2 weeks after that.

Nathan had his first Cardiologist appointment at 1 month, 3 days old. After a clinic appointment, Nathan's Pediatric Cardiologist immediately got him in for an ECHO (ultrasound of the heart). Diagnosed with 2 moderate VSDs (essentially 2 medium sized holes in his heart, between 2 chambers in his heart).

Suffice to say, it was really weird being in the adult Cardiology department, and seeing this tiny 1 month old having an echo.

The holes weren't large enough to require surgery, and since his growth was good, we were sent home with the words "If he goes blue, bring him in to your ER telling them he has heart defects." I can't say I enjoyed hearing those words. Frankly, for the next several months I'd randomly check on him while he was sleeping as I was afraid he'd experience a problem and need to be brought to the hospital. Its really only in the last few months I've stopped worrying about this.

We have a great pediatrician, and between diagnosing him with a murmur, and the first ECHO at a month old, we had biweekly appointments so he could keep an eye on it to make sure it wasn't getting worse. After the ECHO, we were on weekly checkups for a while.. Weekly turned into bimonthly, turned into monthly, and after his 1st birthday and his 2nd ECHO, we're now at no additional appointments being necessary.

Add in several extra appointments other stuff (such as falling on his head, and acting oddly for hours on end, resulting in a quick drive to the Pedi to check his head and heart), and its been a busy year.

At Nathan's 1 year appointment with his Cardiologist, we were glad to hear 1 of 2 of the VSDs had 'spontaneously closed' with the other VSD leaking such a tiny amount, that we will only need a clinic appointment for his 2nd birthday.

We were lucky in the fact that Nathan didn't have a more severe heart defect. Many defects require fixing via a cath lab procedure, or via open heart surgery.

In this day and age, I'm still shocked at people asking why a parent would 'allow' their child to have 'unnecessary' open-heart surgery. Shockingly enough, many think the parent is overreacting, and somehow managed to convince a Dr to operate on their child. They don't seem to understand that without this surgery, the child will die. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Unfortunately, Canada doesn't really have a CHD (Congenital Heart Defect) Awareness program/group (that I was able to find anyways), however the US has a pretty good one.

If you're interested in reading more, or need a support group here are some great links:

Info:
http://www.chdspeaks.org/

Online support groups:
http://www.facebook.com/1in100
http://community.babycenter.com/groups/a5055/babies_and_children_with_heart_problems