«

Vista wrote:

> It would definately cover the cost of fixing the fault. The tech was wrong
> to say that you would be charged. They tried this on me too, until I asked
> with hte wiring fee was supposed to cover. I guess unlike Telecom, they
> assume that people don't have the wiring fee. Sounds like Telecom are
> winning both ways. Could be one for Fair go, although they have covered it
> before.

And, if your line gets disconnected and then reconnected then you get the damn
thing stuck back on again, without asking for it.

On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 19:29:14 +1200, "~misfit~"
<> wrote:

>>> I'm going to ring them back and cancel the $2.53 a month wire
>>> maintenance contract. **** 'em.
>>
>> You first
>>
>> Personally I think this is a rip off, a bit like extended warranties.
>> The company pushes it so, who do you think it is good for?
>
>More than push it. They include it unasked. The only way to *not* pay it is
>to specifically request they stop billing you for it. Not a lot of people
>know that you can even do that.
>
>I don't even know the advantage of it (if there is one) anyway. When I had
>trouble and a telecom tech came around I was warned that if there was a
>fault found with my wiring I'd get charged a minimum of <guess as I can't
>remember> $65. So what does this wire maintenance contract do anyway? Sweet
>FA from the sounds of it. And I've been paying it for about 25 years. Eeek!
>That's ~$760 for nothing. I must ask for a refund.

Heh! Cancelled my wiring contract 15 yrs ago.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:01:13 +1200, someone purporting to be Vista didst
scrawl:

>
> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
> news:...
*SNIP*
> Shares have increased a lot over the last few weeks. They were as low as
> 5.25 a few weeks ago but now at 5.8#.

The market seems to have a lot of (misplaced, IMO) confidence in the
security of Telecon's future. Their EPS yesterday was 187!

--
Matthew Poole
"Don't use force. Get a bigger hammer."

Vista wrote:
>
> It would definately cover the cost of fixing the fault. The tech was wrong
> to say that you would be charged. They tried this on me too, until I asked
> with hte wiring fee was supposed to cover. I guess unlike Telecom, they
> assume that people don't have the wiring fee. Sounds like Telecom are
> winning both ways. Could be one for Fair go, although they have covered it
> before.

Once I was having a battle at work trying to get a distance student
online as her phone line had a huge noise problem. I told her to call
Telecom. She called back to say that Telecom said that because she has a
computer, they won't look at the line for free (because the computer
could be causing the problem). I said to unplug the computer from the
phone socket, tell them the computer's unplugged and to listen on the
phone and they'll hear then noise themselves. She called back to say
they still won't look at the line because she has a computer *in the
house*, but they did agree that phone line sounded noisy and they had
sympathy. I said to lie and say you don't have a computer, and to put it
in the closet if they come around. I don't think she ever did get online.

It's second hand information, I don't know if she was relaying what they
said correctly to me, but the whole deal made me laugh *hard* despite
feeling sorry for this poor beneficiary trying to better herself. She
wasn't prevented from doing her course, she just had to put her files on
a floppy disk and post them in an envelope (which isn't nearly the same
experience a student with email enjoys).

Gavin Tunney wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 16:18:57 +1200, "~misfit~"
> <> wrote:
>
>> Just got my bill. It had $7.50 late payment fee for last month. Yet
>> I made sure the bill was paid by the end of the month. A quick check
>> of their own website showed that my payment was processed by them on
>> 31st and in fact my account was in credit on the billing day (1st of
>> the month).
>>
>> I rang them and, after a lot of button pushing and a wait, "George"
>> answered and checked, only at my insistance, and agreed to remove
>> the late payment fee. I asked him how it can happen, he said "Its
>> the folks in accounting". I said I was asking as I worried in case
>> it was happening to others and they weren't noticing. He said, "No,
>> they notice, we get quite a few phone-calls". He didn't seem to see
>> the irony of it. That (IMO) for eveyone that noticed there were
>> probably 2 that didn't.
>>
>> I didn't get an apology and the guy was quite curt, ****ed me off. I
>> told him that, if they were going to charge a late payment fee, they
>> should give an early payment discount. As I was in credit at the end
>> of the billing cycle then surely, by their own standards, they
>> should give me a $7.50 early payment discount. Of course it was
>> never going to fly but, man, I was annoyed. No apology, nothing.
>> Almost resentment in fact that I had the cheek to question them.
>>
>> I'm going to ring them back and cancel the $2.53 a month wire
>> maintenance contract. **** 'em.
>
> Is it $7.50 now... was $6 last time I got hit. I was getting whacked
> twice at one stage, had separate ph & mobile bills. You could try
> taking them to the Small Claims Court...if you can be bothered. By law
> Telecom can only charge a 'reasonable' fee that bears some
> relationship with their cost of financing. $7.50 isn't big bucks but
> it probably is an unreasonable sum in that regard.
>
> It may be illegal anyway, being an arbitrary number it would likely
> constitute a fine or penalty rather than a financial charge. Was an
> article on Fairgo a while back where Wilson Parking were giving people
> parking tickets if their pay & display voucher had expired. According
> to the Consumer guy they interviewed it's illegal for private parties
> to fine people & Wilsons couldn't enforce their 'tickets'. Would be
> interesting to see a legal test of Telecoms late payment penalty....
> feel like being a hero?

Heh! I'd love to have a go at them. However, I fear legal advice would be
needed and I have no money for that.

I couldn't get over how they had my payment showing on "Your Telecom" page
and yet still charged me the fee, showing on Your Telecom. I mean, WTF??? It
stinks of robbery to me. The info was all there on the web page, obviously
incorrect.

I've spoken to two Telecom people now, both of whom have assured me that the
bill has been amended. Yet, when I log on to Your telecom, it still shows
the incorrect amount owing. (Just checked again)

I'll give them until Monday, then ring back. The problem is, they don't
scare easy and the first guy I talked to acted like he didn't give a ****,
was ****ed off that I'd bothered him about $7.50. Thay act like they're
doing you a favour just listening to you. (Most of them anyway, that chick
Riley was cool, must be new).

Cheers,
--
~Shaun~

colinco wrote:
> In article ~misfit~ says...
>> And I've been paying it for about 25 years. Eeek!
>> That's ~$760 for nothing. I must ask for a refund.
>>
>>
> Get over yourself. The maintenance fee only got separated out of the
> rental when the wiring was deeded to the householder. That would have
> been after Telecom was created.

Do you have a problem with me? That's not the first time you've spoken to me
like that. If you've got a problem come out and say it so I know how to
treat you, don't **** about sniping from the ****ing bushes.

The first time I saw you talk to me like that I figured it was a mistake as
you've always seemed ok. Good in fact. However....

"Get over yourself"? Who the **** do you think you are? I live in Pukekohe,
28 Frank Hewitt Street. Come around and say that to my face. Make it
afternoon so my back isn't quite so sore if you can. If you can't, (or don't
fancy taking me on at my "best", invalid that I am) no problem, I'll take
the extra pain.

Otherwise pull your ****ing head in. Anyone can get all dominant on usenet,
try that **** with me on my doorstep, or in the street, or give it a rest.

Your call.
--
~Shaun~

~misfit~ wrote:

> I'll give them until Monday, then ring back. The problem is, they don't
> scare easy and the first guy I talked to acted like he didn't give a ****,
> was ****ed off that I'd bothered him about $7.50. Thay act like they're
> doing you a favour just listening to you. (Most of them anyway, that chick
> Riley was cool, must be new).

James on the Complex DNS Support help desk today gets kudos for telling
me the serial numbers of a DNS record in the live and cached servers and
knowing the difference between them.

In article ~misfit~ says...
> colinco wrote:
> > In article ~misfit~ says...
> >> And I've been paying it for about 25 years. Eeek!
> >> That's ~$760 for nothing. I must ask for a refund.
> >>
> >>
> > Get over yourself. The maintenance fee only got separated out of the
> > rental when the wiring was deeded to the householder. That would have
> > been after Telecom was created.
>
> Do you have a problem with me? That's not the first time you've spoken to me
> like that. If you've got a problem come out and say it so I know how to
> treat you, don't **** about sniping from the ****ing bushes.
>
No problem with you at all, only the exageration.

colinco wrote:
> In article ~misfit~ says...
>> colinco wrote:
>>> In article ~misfit~ says...
>>>> And I've been paying it for about 25 years. Eeek!
>>>> That's ~$760 for nothing. I must ask for a refund.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Get over yourself. The maintenance fee only got separated out of the
>>> rental when the wiring was deeded to the householder. That would
>>> have been after Telecom was created.
>>
>> Do you have a problem with me? That's not the first time you've
>> spoken to me like that. If you've got a problem come out and say it
>> so I know how to treat you, don't **** about sniping from the
>> ****ing bushes.
>>
> No problem with you at all, only the exageration.

It wasn't intended to be an exaggeration. I didn't realise that I had only
been paying it for 15 years instead of 25. I didn't even know you could opt
out of it (as, I dare say most others don't) until about 5 years ago. I
learnt about it from reading it on usenet. I indeed did opt out of it, than
had my phone disconnected and had to pay $27 billion (That's a deliberate
exaggeration) to get it re-"connected". They stuck it back on then.

If you indeed have no problem with me then I respectfully suggest that you
choose your "opening lines" more carefully. "Get over yourself" Is bloody
rude. It implies that someone is (wrongly) self-important and egotistical,
and, where I come from, is a serious insult. Fighting talk.

Pax.
--
~Shaun~

In article <>, Matthew Poole <> wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:01:13 +1200, someone purporting to be Vista didst
>scrawl:

>> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>*SNIP*
>> Shares have increased a lot over the last few weeks. They were as low as
>> 5.25 a few weeks ago but now at 5.8#.
>
>The market seems to have a lot of (misplaced, IMO) confidence in the
>security of Telecon's future. Their EPS yesterday was 187!

There has been some suggestion that the government won't regulate them
because t/c shares are about 25 % of the share index and a sharp index fall
is bad for business.

I hope this is not so ... and hasten to add that I have never owned any t/c
shares ... I keep hoping they'll be smacked down. Still waiting



Bruce

----------------------------------------
I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good
people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and
only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Lord Vetinari in Guards ! Guards ! - Terry Pratchett

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)