Orcon verus myself Round 1 reports

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Bottle Boy, Feb 24, 2005.

  1. Bottle Boy

    Bottle Boy Guest

    Summary:
    Had a massive row with an orcon manager about getting my account cancelled
    on Tuesday. I said I wanted out on their contract and I wanted out now
    because they had failed to deliver their promised quality of service. Plus
    they'd added new clauses that I didn't agree to. The manager said he'd call
    me back yesterday but he never did.

    Round 1:
    I called up again today and finally got hold of the manager. He said I
    couldn't get out of the contract and had to give 30 days notice in writing
    and I'd have to pay for the 30 days. I told him I had no intention of paying
    them for another month of sub-standard internet use.

    Legally I am bound by the terms of the contract ... but then again so are
    Orcon, right? They promised me a quality of service which they have not been
    able to deliver. Through numerous support calls of mine they kept promising
    improved quality in a "day" or "week" but no improvements ever materialised.
    In the end they even stopped returning my support calls. Also, can Orcon
    change their terms and conditions and expect their customers to adhere to
    them?!

    I've asked for Orcon's owner, Seeby, to call me back. He was a friend of
    mine back from our Uni days. I hope he is more reasonable.

    To be honest $50 isn't much but this is a matter of principle. You can't
    promise customers a level of quality and not deliver. That's just not on.
    Stay tuned for round 2!
     
    Bottle Boy, Feb 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bottle Boy

    Benji Thorn Guest

    Really interested to hear about this! Keep us informed mate!

    Bottle Boy wrote:
    > Summary:
    > Had a massive row with an orcon manager about getting my account cancelled
    > on Tuesday. I said I wanted out on their contract and I wanted out now
    > because they had failed to deliver their promised quality of service. Plus
    > they'd added new clauses that I didn't agree to. The manager said he'd call
    > me back yesterday but he never did.
    >
    > Round 1:
    > I called up again today and finally got hold of the manager. He said I
    > couldn't get out of the contract and had to give 30 days notice in writing
    > and I'd have to pay for the 30 days. I told him I had no intention of paying
    > them for another month of sub-standard internet use.
    >
    > Legally I am bound by the terms of the contract ... but then again so are
    > Orcon, right? They promised me a quality of service which they have not been
    > able to deliver. Through numerous support calls of mine they kept promising
    > improved quality in a "day" or "week" but no improvements ever materialised.
    > In the end they even stopped returning my support calls. Also, can Orcon
    > change their terms and conditions and expect their customers to adhere to
    > them?!
    >
    > I've asked for Orcon's owner, Seeby, to call me back. He was a friend of
    > mine back from our Uni days. I hope he is more reasonable.
    >
    > To be honest $50 isn't much but this is a matter of principle. You can't
    > promise customers a level of quality and not deliver. That's just not on.
    > Stay tuned for round 2!
    >
    >
     
    Benji Thorn, Feb 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bottle Boy wrote:
    > Summary:
    > Had a massive row with an orcon manager about getting my account cancelled
    > on Tuesday. I said I wanted out on their contract and I wanted out now
    > because they had failed to deliver their promised quality of service. Plus
    > they'd added new clauses that I didn't agree to. The manager said he'd call
    > me back yesterday but he never did.
    >
    > Round 1:
    > I called up again today and finally got hold of the manager. He said I
    > couldn't get out of the contract and had to give 30 days notice in writing
    > and I'd have to pay for the 30 days. I told him I had no intention of paying
    > them for another month of sub-standard internet use.


    Am I alone in not receiving any notification of change of T&C to my
    primary e-mail address with Orcon?

    I assume I am not. Did anyone in fact get notification of this change?

    I'm sure Orcon have previously changed their T&C with less than the
    stated 30 days notice.

    The change is aligned to the start of the calender month, not the
    billing cycle. As such, if they provide only 30 days notice, and users
    choose to cancel before the new policies apply, they WILL be charged for
    the following month of service they are not using. I personally don't
    consider this acceptable.

    Orcon has effectively chosen to cease providing the agreed service, and
    therefore I would consider they had no legal right to charge for it.

    > Legally I am bound by the terms of the contract ... but then again so are
    > Orcon, right? They promised me a quality of service which they have not been
    > able to deliver. Through numerous support calls of mine they kept promising
    > improved quality in a "day" or "week" but no improvements ever materialised.
    > In the end they even stopped returning my support calls. Also, can Orcon
    > change their terms and conditions and expect their customers to adhere to
    > them?!


    Actually I would argue the change in T&C are not legally binding because
    they do not meet the offer and acceptance model required for a valid
    contract to exist.


    > To be honest $50 isn't much but this is a matter of principle. You can't
    > promise customers a level of quality and not deliver. That's just not on.
    > Stay tuned for round 2!


    Good luck! It took me about four months to get a three dollar credit
    from Orcon.

    The Other Guy
     
    The Other Guy, Feb 24, 2005
    #3
  4. Bottle Boy

    Bottle Boy Guest

    "The Other Guy" <> wrote in message
    news:421d4ae7$...
    > Bottle Boy wrote:
    > Am I alone in not receiving any notification of change of T&C to my
    > primary e-mail address with Orcon?


    No, you're not. No one has been informed of the changes to the terms and
    conditions. It was fortunate that one of the posters in this NG picked this
    up on their website. It is effective early march IIRC.
     
    Bottle Boy, Feb 24, 2005
    #4
  5. Bottle Boy

    Gordon Guest

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:32:12 +1300, Bottle Boy wrote:

    > Also, can Orcon
    > change their terms and conditions and expect their customers to adhere to
    > them?!


    Well usually, the notice period of bailing out is less or equal than the
    notice given of the changes.

    Companies do change their terms, you agree to when you sign up. After all
    the price might go down.;-)
     
    Gordon, Feb 24, 2005
    #5
  6. Bottle Boy

    Gordon Guest

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:32:12 +1300, Bottle Boy wrote:

    > I've asked for Orcon's owner, Seeby, to call me back. He was a friend of
    > mine back from our Uni days. I hope he is more reasonable.


    Oh so we now are headed down the Old Boys Network route. Shame on you
     
    Gordon, Feb 24, 2005
    #6
  7. Bottle Boy

    Jedmeister Guest

    "Bottle Boy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Summary:
    > Had a massive row with an orcon manager about getting my account cancelled
    > on Tuesday. I said I wanted out on their contract and I wanted out now
    > because they had failed to deliver their promised quality of service. Plus
    > they'd added new clauses that I didn't agree to. The manager said he'd
    > call me back yesterday but he never did.
    >
    > Round 1:
    > I called up again today and finally got hold of the manager. He said I
    > couldn't get out of the contract and had to give 30 days notice in writing
    > and I'd have to pay for the 30 days. I told him I had no intention of
    > paying them for another month of sub-standard internet use.
    >
    > Legally I am bound by the terms of the contract ... but then again so are
    > Orcon, right? They promised me a quality of service which they have not
    > been able to deliver. Through numerous support calls of mine they kept
    > promising improved quality in a "day" or "week" but no improvements ever
    > materialised. In the end they even stopped returning my support calls.
    > Also, can Orcon change their terms and conditions and expect their
    > customers to adhere to them?!
    >
    > I've asked for Orcon's owner, Seeby, to call me back. He was a friend of
    > mine back from our Uni days. I hope he is more reasonable.
    >
    > To be honest $50 isn't much but this is a matter of principle. You can't
    > promise customers a level of quality and not deliver. That's just not on.
    > Stay tuned for round 2!
    >


    Take them to small claims court, it'd be a good experience if you never did
    this before anyway. You just need to document the poor quality service.

    You should be protected under consumer guarantees I think.

    Remember, to add the court costs to your claim.
     
    Jedmeister, Feb 24, 2005
    #7
  8. > Legally I am bound by the terms of the contract ... but then again so are
    > Orcon, right? They promised me a quality of service which they have not been
    > able to deliver.


    It comes down to identifying clearly who broke what. Emotion means
    nothing, it's just cold, hard facts.

    Did you have an agreement with Orcon and you subsequently have decided
    to change ?

    Did Orcon specifically give a measurable and identified definition of
    "quality of service" ?

    Did Orcon substantially modify the T&C to the degree that it would
    nullified the entire previous contract you agreed to ? Can you prove it
    with specific, targeted and identified facts ?

    Did the T&C have a rollover clause which you agreed would be acceptable
    when you agreed to their original contract ?
     
    -=[Waylon Smithers]=-, Feb 24, 2005
    #8
  9. -=[Waylon Smithers]=- wrote:
    >> Legally I am bound by the terms of the contract ... but then again so
    >> are Orcon, right? They promised me a quality of service which they
    >> have not been able to deliver.

    >
    > It comes down to identifying clearly who broke what. Emotion means
    > nothing, it's just cold, hard facts.
    >
    > Did you have an agreement with Orcon and you subsequently have decided
    > to change ?


    No, Orcon decided to change.

    > Did Orcon specifically give a measurable and identified definition of
    > "quality of service" ?


    No. Orcon T&C previously did not include any ability to deliberately
    degrade the service as they choose. Where other ISPs do this, it is
    included in their T&C. Orcon in the past have not rate limited ports,
    the new T&C give them the ability to do so legitimately. Reports on this
    group suggest they are doing so even before the new T&C are in operation.

    Internet access is *NOT* HTTP and FTP, no matter what the average user
    may think.

    > Did Orcon substantially modify the T&C to the degree that it would
    > nullified the entire previous contract you agreed to ? Can you prove it
    > with specific, targeted and identified facts ?


    Yes, see above. The scale of the change is irrelevant. Even if they
    impost some minor restriction, if you don't agree to it, the T&C clearly
    state you must cease using their service.

    > Did the T&C have a rollover clause which you agreed would be acceptable
    > when you agreed to their original contract ?


    As above, if you don't agree to the T&C (including changes), you must
    cease using their service.

    The Other Guy
     
    The Other Guy, Feb 24, 2005
    #9
  10. >> Did you have an agreement with Orcon and you subsequently have decided
    >> to change ?

    > No, Orcon decided to change.


    Yes, that's the obvious points out of the way :) Silly, but needs to be
    done.


    >> Did Orcon specifically give a measurable and identified definition of
    >> "quality of service" ?

    > No. Orcon T&C previously did not include any ability to deliberately
    > degrade the service as they choose. Where other ISPs do this, it is
    > included in their T&C. Orcon in the past have not rate limited ports,
    > the new T&C give them the ability to do so legitimately. Reports on this
    > group suggest they are doing so even before the new T&C are in operation.
    > Internet access is *NOT* HTTP and FTP, no matter what the average user
    > may think.


    If the phrase was 'quality of service' or similar then, well, they can
    do what they like and define quality of service as they see fit. Because
    the contract was initiated by them they have the ability to set the
    definitions. And the big point is that the contract is not for a one off
    event, but for the continuation of supply. How they deliver that service
    (degraded or not) is up to them. But if their contract states a figure
    of supply for speed, length or something measurable, then they've
    screwed up (which is probably why the contract has changed due to some
    legal person going uh-oh, minefield ahead).


    >> Did Orcon substantially modify the T&C to the degree that it would
    >> nullified the entire previous contract you agreed to ? Can you prove
    >> it with specific, targeted and identified facts ?

    > Yes, see above. The scale of the change is irrelevant. Even if they
    > impost some minor restriction, if you don't agree to it, the T&C clearly
    > state you must cease using their service.


    Someone would need to recheck the contract to make sure if there was any
    clause concerning subject to modifications, like most major business
    contracts where you are purchasing a service from someone by choice on a
    continual basis, rather than a specific one off event. Usually there's
    tiny print commenting on how the initial party has the right to modify
    the contract, and if the other party doesn't like it, they have the
    right to refuse to continue with the contract, subject to said
    conditions blah blah blah.

    We seem to agree that the scale of the change to the service and
    contract is irrelevant, but if the service is changed, people really
    have little choice but to either accept it or reject it.

    You could try the small claims court for the issue of a change being
    forced upon you before you had agreed to the contract of supply being
    modified, but it would be an exercise on wastng time. Fun ! but still
    wasting time.

    >> Did the T&C have a rollover clause which you agreed would be
    >> acceptable when you agreed to their original contract ?

    > As above, if you don't agree to the T&C (including changes), you must
    > cease using their service.


    While I don't want to be seen as the tough luck guy, simple facts
    remains that if someone agrees to their contract, subject to the T&C
    being modified from time to time, basically one doesn't have a leg to
    stand on.

    When you're buying a service with continual rollover - power, phone,
    Sky, magazine subscriptions, the list goes on and on - the supplier has
    the right to modify the contract within limits and with notification.
    Your payment and use of their service to them indicates acceptance of
    the contract. Or you can cancel the contract, with the usual clauses in
    effect.

    My 2c worth - I don't agree with what Orcon have done, but if people
    don't like it, they have the ability to go somewhere else. If they have
    business and PR smarts, they'll let people go who want to go without
    creating too much of a fuss. But somehow I doubt it.

    The issue of "unlimited" and "flat rate" supply has been a thorny one
    for years.

    Remember when Ihug changed their dialup length to kick people off after
    a couple of hours if there other people waiting to log on ? And they
    advertised unlimited internet access when Xtra had an hourly rate ?

    Same old story, just happening again and again.
     
    -=[Waylon Smithers]=-, Feb 24, 2005
    #10
  11. Bottle Boy

    ~misfit~ Guest

    -=[Waylon Smithers]=- wrote:
    >> Legally I am bound by the terms of the contract ... but then again
    >> so are Orcon, right? They promised me a quality of service which
    >> they have not been able to deliver.

    >
    > It comes down to identifying clearly who broke what. Emotion means
    > nothing, it's just cold, hard facts.
    >
    > Did you have an agreement with Orcon and you subsequently have decided
    > to change ?
    >
    > Did Orcon specifically give a measurable and identified definition of
    > "quality of service" ?
    >
    > Did Orcon substantially modify the T&C to the degree that it would
    > nullified the entire previous contract you agreed to ? Can you prove
    > it with specific, targeted and identified facts ?


    I have back-issues of NZ PC World advertising this service (Residential 256k
    Bitstream) that make statements like:

    "Flat-rate data usage with no speed capping"

    "Eat all you want without having to cut back"

    "256k download, 128k upload"

    It doesn't say best expected speed there does it? It plainly states "256k
    download, 128k upload". Not "You'll be damn lucky ever to hit 256k, most of
    the time you'll get maybe 100k"

    It'll be interesting to see if they change their ads.

    > Did the T&C have a rollover clause which you agreed would be
    > acceptable when you agreed to their original contract ?


    From the general T&C:

    http://orcon.net.nz/help/terms/general/

    2.2. The ISP reserves the right to modify the Terms and Conditions, the
    services or the fees charged for any of its services at any time.

    2.3. The ISP will give existing customers at least 30 days notices of any
    changes to its fees or services by sending an email message to their email
    address as recorded on file. The user acknowledges that it is their
    responsibility to keep us updated of any change of email address and to read
    the updated Terms and Conditions upon receipt of such message.

    ******************************************

    (I didn't get notification by email. Did anyone?)

    And from the service-specific terms, Bitstream and Jetstream, the bits that
    were changed/added:

    http://orcon.net.nz/help/terms/42800/

    6. Speed of Services
    6.1 You acknowledge that any claims made about speed of service are best
    effort peaks and not guarantees. Speed claims are line speeds only and no
    guarantees are made for national and international traffic, or any
    particular type of traffic.

    ******************************************

    (This says to me that, although the package they sold me was called 256Kb/s,
    and still is, that is in fact the *maximum* I can ever expect out of it, a
    "peak" speed. Peak by it's very definition (used in this sense) means very
    rare occurance. And here was me thinking I was getting a 256Kb/s connection,
    not one that may hit close to that speed once in a blue moon).

    6.2 Latency is not guaranteed, but should remain below 1000ms one-way across
    the line only. There are no jitter guarantees.

    (IOW if you're a gamer or want anything much faster than dial-up [The
    original ad that got me guaranteed me X times faster than dial-up] don't get
    this product)

    And, for Bottle Boy, from the same page:

    8. Cancellation of Services
    8.1 If you choose to cancel your Bitstream, 30 days notice before the end of
    a billing cycle must be given. The service will stop at the end of a billing
    cycle and you will be charged up until the end of the billing cycle. This
    means if you cancel on the first day of a billing period you will have to
    pay for the entire billing period. There is no cancellation fee.
    8.2 When you agree to take Bitstream you must purchase the service for at
    least one billing period. This means if you cancel your order as soon as it
    is placed, you must still pay for the entire billing period.
    8.3 We reserve the right to cancel your Bitstream in the event that we do
    not receive payment. We will give you 5 days notice via your preferred email
    address for you to pay your account to avoid Bitstream cancellation. It is
    your responsibility to have your email account details accurate with us. In
    the event that we cancel your Bitstream, a reconnection fee will apply if
    you wish to reinstate your services.

    ********************************************

    Interestingly, the change in the T&C don't seem to be legal to me and
    therefore aren't binding. Also from that page:

    9. Changes to Terms and Conditions
    9.1 We may at any time change these terms and conditions.
    9.2 We may at any time, giving you 30 days notice via email:
    -Change the charges for services.
    -Amend or discontinue the services, or move you onto another
    equivalent plan.
    It is your responsibility to provide us with correct and current contact
    information.

    *********************************************

    (Now, I didn't get notified of the fact that I no longer have a 256Kb/s
    service by email, I had to find out here. Surely what they did comes under
    the heading "Amend or discontinue the services....". So, until I get 30
    days notice in my email I expect a full 256Kb/s service that I paid for with
    reasonable latency [I discussed latency with the helldesk and was assured it
    would be fine prior to accepting the service. I guess I'm gonna have to
    start recording all conversations with Orcon, I wish I'd done it from the
    start])

    I love this bit:

    7.2 The Bitstream service is an "always on" connection and can not be
    suspended. Charges for the full month will still apply, even if not used.

    *********************************************

    (Always on? My ADSL has been going down like a $5 whore in the am most
    nights, usually 4am but often around 2am as well. Then there was that whole
    afternoon it was out a while a go because they had an electrical storm
    nearby. Do I get refunded or not charged for any month that the service is
    interuppted? Because then it wouldn't be an "Always on" service that I
    bought and pay for).

    <shrug>

    Time is running out as far as I'm concerned for Orcon. If I don't get better
    latency soon, regardless of their new T&Cs that I haven't been officially
    notified about, I'm out.

    A bit of good news, see my post "Orcon port 119."

    Cheers,
    --
    ~misfit~



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    ~misfit~, Feb 24, 2005
    #11
  12. Bottle Boy

    Mark S Guest

    "-=[Waylon Smithers]=-" <lifestyles_choice@springfield_nuclear_plant.com>
    wrote in message news:cvlg1k$tbs$...
    > If the phrase was 'quality of service' or similar then, well, they can
    > do what they like and define quality of service as they see fit. Because
    > the contract was initiated by them they have the ability to set the
    > definitions.


    Actually no. If the definitions of a service a left reasonably obscure then
    those definitions would be taken as whats "fair and reasonable" in the
    market place. Brush up on your fair trading act, its about as ambiguous as
    it gets... but it means that if the provider doesn't explicitly state the
    parameters then they can't work it to their own advantage.

    Small claims would rape their butts.
     
    Mark S, Feb 24, 2005
    #12
  13. Mark S wrote:
    > "-=[Waylon Smithers]=-" <lifestyles_choice@springfield_nuclear_plant.com>
    > wrote in message news:cvlg1k$tbs$...
    >
    >>If the phrase was 'quality of service' or similar then, well, they can
    >>do what they like and define quality of service as they see fit. Because
    >>the contract was initiated by them they have the ability to set the
    >>definitions.

    >
    >
    > Actually no. If the definitions of a service a left reasonably obscure then
    > those definitions would be taken as whats "fair and reasonable" in the
    > market place. Brush up on your fair trading act, its about as ambiguous as
    > it gets... but it means that if the provider doesn't explicitly state the
    > parameters then they can't work it to their own advantage.
    >
    > Small claims would rape their butts.


    I'll run it past our legal lassie at work again - I was paraphrasing her
    comments. Sigh, it'll cost me another good coffee :) The term
    definition of service came from the OP "they had failed to deliver their
    promised quality of service. Plus
    they'd added new clauses that I didn't agree to" .

    But from misfits post, clause 2.2 basically nulifies a broad range of
    claims against them, including this one.
     
    -=[Waylon Smithers]=-, Feb 24, 2005
    #13
  14. Bottle Boy

    Brendan Guest

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:46:16 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:

    > Time is running out as far as I'm concerned for Orcon. If I don't get better
    > latency soon, regardless of their new T&Cs that I haven't been officially
    > notified about, I'm out.


    I'm thinking I will go back to the 2meg system with Xtra. Yes, pack of
    bastards etc, $100 churn fee, etc, but I am highly sick of Orcon now. And
    this suspected traffic shaping is disgusting.

    Does xtra traffic shape ? If so, who doesn't ? I don't want some watered
    down internet.

    --

    .... Brendan

    "New York is the only city in the world where you can get deliberately run down on the sidewalk by a pedestrian." -- Russell Baker

    Note: All my comments are copyright 25/02/2005 12:29:56 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    Brendan, Feb 24, 2005
    #14
  15. Brendan wrote:
    > Does xtra traffic shape ? If so, who doesn't ? I don't want some watered
    > down internet.


    pretty much everyone traffic shapes to some degree, to not traffic shape
    would be irrisponsible network managment.

    and just to totally disregard what I have just posted, what it sounds
    like you're after is a dedicated connection, with guaranteed speeds etc,
    if so, pay for it like everyone else has to.

    Xtra used to traffic shape, but they seem to have lost most of the
    leeches when they introduced the 5GB cap on Jetstart, and they(the
    leeches) never went back there. If they do traffic shape, they dont seem
    to do it well.
     
    Dave - dave.net.nz, Feb 24, 2005
    #15
  16. Dave - dave.net.nz wrote:
    > Brendan wrote:
    >
    >> Does xtra traffic shape ? If so, who doesn't ? I don't want some watered
    >> down internet.

    >
    > pretty much everyone traffic shapes to some degree, to not traffic shape
    > would be irrisponsible network managment.


    Traffic shaping that shares available bandwidth equally amongst all
    users is good, those that force specific protocols down to slower speeds
    or places them in queues while other 'high priority' traffic passes are not.

    The latter introduces excessive latency and causes problems with
    timeouts. The 'leechers' deserve their fair share of network capacity at
    any given period of time as much as anyone else does. The user decides
    what is important from "Internet access", not the ISP.

    The Other Guy
     
    The Other Guy, Feb 25, 2005
    #16
  17. Bottle Boy

    Brendan Guest

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:40:54 +1300, Dave - dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Brendan wrote:
    >> Does xtra traffic shape ? If so, who doesn't ? I don't want some watered
    >> down internet.

    >
    > pretty much everyone traffic shapes to some degree, to not traffic shape
    > would be irrisponsible network managment.


    Prioritising traffic is one thing. Artificially limiting it is another and
    unacceptable.

    > and just to totally disregard what I have just posted, what it sounds
    > like you're after is a dedicated connection, with guaranteed speeds etc,
    > if so, pay for it like everyone else has to.


    No, I simply want what the rest of the world and you take for granted.

    > Xtra used to traffic shape, but they seem to have lost most of the
    > leeches when they introduced the 5GB cap on Jetstart, and they(the
    > leeches) never went back there. If they do traffic shape, they dont seem
    > to do it well.


    Interesting.

    --

    .... Brendan

    "Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt

    Note: All my comments are copyright 25/02/2005 12:58:58 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    Brendan, Feb 25, 2005
    #17
  18. Brendan wrote:
    >>and just to totally disregard what I have just posted, what it sounds
    >>like you're after is a dedicated connection, with guaranteed speeds etc,
    >>if so, pay for it like everyone else has to.


    > No, I simply want what the rest of the world and you take for granted.


    what is it that the rest of the world and I take for granted?

    --
    Dave.net.nz
    reply addy is e
    nice! http://www.dave.net.nz/images/link.jpg
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Feb 25, 2005
    #18
  19. Bottle Boy

    ~misfit~ Guest

    -=[Waylon Smithers]=- wrote:
    > Mark S wrote:
    >> "-=[Waylon Smithers]=-"
    >> <lifestyles_choice@springfield_nuclear_plant.com> wrote in message
    >> news:cvlg1k$tbs$...
    >>
    >>> If the phrase was 'quality of service' or similar then, well, they
    >>> can do what they like and define quality of service as they see
    >>> fit. Because the contract was initiated by them they have the
    >>> ability to set the definitions.

    >>
    >>
    >> Actually no. If the definitions of a service a left reasonably
    >> obscure then those definitions would be taken as whats "fair and
    >> reasonable" in the market place. Brush up on your fair trading act,
    >> its about as ambiguous as it gets... but it means that if the
    >> provider doesn't explicitly state the parameters then they can't
    >> work it to their own advantage.
    >>
    >> Small claims would rape their butts.

    >
    > I'll run it past our legal lassie at work again - I was paraphrasing
    > her comments. Sigh, it'll cost me another good coffee :) The term
    > definition of service came from the OP "they had failed to deliver
    > their promised quality of service. Plus
    > they'd added new clauses that I didn't agree to" .
    >
    > But from misfits post, clause 2.2 basically nulifies a broad range of
    > claims against them, including this one.


    But surely only if they've complied with clause 2.3?
    --
    ~misfit~



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    ~misfit~, Feb 25, 2005
    #19
  20. Bottle Boy

    Brendan Guest

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 17:13:18 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    >>>and just to totally disregard what I have just posted, what it sounds
    >>>like you're after is a dedicated connection, with guaranteed speeds etc,
    >>>if so, pay for it like everyone else has to.

    >
    >> No, I simply want what the rest of the world and you take for granted.

    >
    > what is it that the rest of the world and I take for granted?


    High speed internet. The rest of the world gets it for a cheap rate and
    huge cap/no cap/no traffic shaping.

    Complaining about 'leechers' is irrelevant and self defeating. They do
    nothing they should not. They bought 'internet access', not 'web access'.
    Retroactively imposing traffic shaping because your advertising claims did
    not reflect reality is not the 'leechers' fault and they should not be
    punished for fully utilising what they have paid for.

    If what they pay does not cover what they use - that is not their fault.
    The ISP should put the price up so people have an honest idea of what they
    are paying and can chose intelligently. No guessing games.
    You would not tolerate your newspaper boy removing pages from your paper
    because you read the entire thing every day, and you should not tolerate
    traffic shaping because you use your net connection all the time.

    --

    .... Brendan

    "I love you more today than yesterday and only half as much as tomorrow."
    - "renjith"?

    Note: All my comments are copyright 25/02/2005 7:53:56 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    Brendan, Feb 25, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark Alexander

    VS .NET 2002 verus 2003

    Mark Alexander, Jul 16, 2004, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    936
    UAError
    Jul 16, 2004
  2. Alan

    Computer Goes Round and Round Checking

    Alan, Oct 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    979
    Monroe Dowling
    Oct 8, 2004
  3. Mike Easter

    Re: Good guys verus the turds

    Mike Easter, Mar 14, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    408
  4. Aratzio
    Replies:
    72
    Views:
    1,520
    david hillstrom
    Apr 1, 2010
  5. DaGenester
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,255
    Ed Rusi
    May 20, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page