dks,
The fact that Sagemcom manufactures the Giga Hub does not transfer responsibility away from Bell.
Customers purchase service from Bell, pay Bell each month, receive equipment selected and supplied by Bell, and receive firmware approved and deployed through Bell. Whatever contractual relationship Bell has with Sagemcom is Bell’s responsibility, not the customer’s. But nice try at deflecting again.
GIO1234 stated this correctly. Bell chose the vendor and equipment, controls what customers are issued, and is responsible for delivering the service being sold. Bell cannot force customers to use its hardware and then point at the manufacturer when that hardware or firmware fails.
Referring customers to Bell’s limitation-of-liability clauses is also not a technical answer. Those clauses do not repair broken PPPoE passthrough, restore the speeds customers pay for, provide an ETA or prevent customers from leaving Bell. Nor do they address Bells inability to deliver a service as advertised.
Customers affected by this failure are reasonably asking for one of the following:
a firmware rollback or repair;
a clear ETA;
replacement hardware that works;
a supported alternative handoff;
or a substantial bill reduction until Bell delivers the purchased service.
As GIO1234 also noted, the technical reports in this thread create an important record for escalation, including through the CCTS if Bell continues collecting full payment while knowingly providing degraded service.
You then stated that we are arguing with someone who has no influence. Nobody claimed that you control Bell’s engineering department. The issue is that you repeatedly enter the discussion to defend Bell, minimize the problem, cite liability clauses and tell customers to wait indefinitely.
GIO1234 was correct again. If you have no influence, those deflections contribute nothing. The useful response would be to help collect firmware versions, speed results, configuration details and escalation information, or simply allow affected customers to document the problem without repeatedly explaining why Bell should not be held responsible.
Your final response amounts to.... Bell knows best, Bell is looking into it, and perhaps Bell will eventually deliver a solution.
That is not good enough.
Bell has a supported feature that does not work properly, no ETA, no supported alternative and no apparent urgency. Customers should not be expected to continue paying full price indefinitely while Bell investigates “in due course.”
If you have nothing more useful to contribute than “Bell knows best and Bell will deliver someday,” then your comments serve no practical purpose and are, quite frankly, becoming increasingly annoying.
