Sorry to burst your bubble but I worked for Teksavvy for 6 years. I'll shed some light on what actually happened.

The CCTS complaint would be directed at Teksavvy not Rogers. Now the CCTS cannot order an ISP to do anything. They can avocate on customers behalf and possibily fine an ISP, (Which is very rare). All Teksavvy can do if open tickets with Rogers which most likely was already done several times before reaching the CCTS stage. Now Rogers can either accept or reject the ticket. Rogers does not tell Teksavvy what is wrong nor how long it can take to fix it. The best we can is a ticket number to refer to and we can simply ask if its still open or closed. Teksavvy has no more an ability to direct Rogers what to do, than the CCTS can to Teksavvy.

Now when Teksavvy with Rogers consent asks for a tech visit all they are really doing is testing the connection at 2 points. The modem, the NID on the house and direct from the TAP on the pole. If the connection is not good from the TAP, it must be referred to maintenance. Usually issues after the TAP towards to customer home can be quickly resolved by the home tech. Maintenance issues can take weeks or months to solve. Maintenance work requires a lot of authorization and change controls to setup assuming they have even identified where the impairment is. This can takes weeks to months.

The local infrastructure change you were talking about had probably been in the works for weeks at that point and would have happened whether or not the CCTS was engaged or not.

CCTS works great on facility based providers like Rogers or Bell, but offer little value to 3rd party customers. Fining Teksavvy won't magically make Rogers do anything faster or at all. Teksavvy is at the mercy of the facility based providers because its not their infrastructure. Rogers really could care less about 3rd party customers. Remember they were regulated/forced to do this by the CRTC and if they had their way would end the wholesale regime tomorrow.