Spark is charging $150 for nothing!

Forums › Spark New Zealand (including Skinny and BigPipe) › Spark is charging $150 for nothing!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1324097 13-Jun-2015 16:02

It might be a guaranteed for couple of seconds/minutes, but not necessarily for 1-1.5 hour power outage, depending on type of the battery and power load of the communication hardware.

This thread is getting very OT now, but your statement is incorrect and I'm not sure where you're got that information from.

Even in Christchurch during the earthquake there were very few cabinets that went down, and I don't believe there was a single exchange that actually lost power.

As for "defending yourself" I'm not sure what you're trying to defend yourself from. You requested a tech visit to diagnose a fault. No fault was found, so you were billed accordingly. It's a very clear case.

Yes you may disagree with the fault diagnosis and the pricing, but that's the reality of the world we live in. The facts around broadband faults are very clear - the vast majority of problems are caused by issues within the customers premises - on cabling that is owned by the end customer, not Chorus.

If your situation I've seen nothing so far to suggest a Chorus issue. There is plenty of debate in the RSP world over Chorus closing jobs with a NFF and faults mysteriously being fixed at the same time, which some simply see as Chorus ripping off RSP's, but based upon what you've said there is nothing to suggest that is the case.

A tech does not need to a visit a site to determine a fault - testing at the demark or pillar probably showed the exact same sync speed.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18665 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1324102 13-Jun-2015 16:16

As long as we are going off-topic, I do like the idea of variable payments according to the level of service. It seems to me like the balance of power is often tilted in favour of service providers and consumers have little redress unless the service failure is overwhelming and persistent. Why shouldn't a customer be able to say the service is only a fraction of what I contracted for so I am entitled to pay a corresponding fraction of the fee? I appreciate the practical difficulties of this but that does not necessarily preclude some kind of intermediate solution. I am not commenting on OP's specific complaint, just raising a point of principle.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Jase2985

13465 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1324108 13-Jun-2015 16:25

because the contract is not for X speed, the only guarantee is that the speed will be above the regulated minimum which is like 32kbps over 15 mins.

the advertised and contracted speed is UP TO xyz not you will get XYZ.

Sideface

9364 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1324110 13-Jun-2015 16:30

Rikkitic: As long as we are going off-topic, I do like the idea of variable payments according to the level of service. It seems to me like the balance of power is often tilted in favour of service providers and consumers have little redress unless the service failure is overwhelming and persistent. Why shouldn't a customer be able to say the service is only a fraction of what I contracted for so I am entitled to pay a corresponding fraction of the fee? I appreciate the practical difficulties of this but that does not necessarily preclude some kind of intermediate solution. I am not commenting on OP's specific complaint, just raising a point of principle.

An interesting concept

an example:

I'm on cable 100/10Mbps, for which I pay aprx. $100 per month.

For two hours of every day (typically 8-9pm) my speeds drop to 10 Mbps (cable congestion).
My download speed averaged over 24 hours is 80Mbps (according to TrueNet)

So should I pay VF only 10% of $100 per month ($10)?
Or should I pay VF 80% of $100 per month ($80)?
Or should I pay a different rate every month according to that month's speed?

A logistical nightmare for a "best effort service".

Sideface

airfern

22 posts

Geek

Trusted

#1324115 13-Jun-2015 16:49

Sbiddle, would you know then why the ADSL 15Mpbs link, which stayed the same for years, just suddenly dropped to 10Mbps for about 1.5 month and then recovered itself back to 15Mpbs?
Nothing was changed on house premises, no physical cable cut by the roadworks or whats so ever. What would you personally do in this case?

Again, I didn't say to SPARK phone rep something like: "Ok, send the technician out, I'm fine to pay $150 if no faults found".
I told them: "Please, check the link and do whatever is required to convert the ADSL speed back to the previous state, as I can validate, that nothing was changed in the house wiring, modem, phones, etc".

By the "the reality of the world" you suggest, I should be also accepting to pay for whatever costs involved during the "link checkup".
Let's say, SPARK senior network engineer have spent 3 hours by trying to find the cause of the issue, then I should pay $300 charge on it.
-Sorry, but I didn't request this check up?
-What do you mean, sir? -You just did request the link check, didn't you?

In my reality of the world this kind of behavior looks more like an absurd, not norm.
However, different people have different views.

BarTender

3606 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1324117 13-Jun-2015 16:56

Rikkitic: As long as we are going off-topic, I do like the idea of variable payments according to the level of service. It seems to me like the balance of power is often tilted in favour of service providers and consumers have little redress unless the service failure is overwhelming and persistent. Why shouldn't a customer be able to say the service is only a fraction of what I contracted for so I am entitled to pay a corresponding fraction of the fee? I appreciate the practical difficulties of this but that does not necessarily preclude some kind of intermediate solution. I am not commenting on OP's specific complaint, just raising a point of principle.

So I am assuming that if we are going to have variable service that would be mandated by the commerce commission. As Spark along with every other retail service provider pay a regulated amount to Chorus for each service.

If the cost of providing the service was also taken into account. The cost of rural fixed broadband would skyrocket, and the costs of urban would drop slightly.

Should we also start mandating that once UFB has gone in we also force migrate everyone off Copper and onto UFB? (since we are already way OT!)

airfern

22 posts

Geek

Trusted

#1324120 13-Jun-2015 17:06

Sideface, not really a logistical nightmare.

There are about 720 hours in one month, so your service costs ~0.14c per hour for 100Mbps and ~0.11c per hour for 80Mbps.
There are 60 out of 720 hours of downgraded service, so 10% would come down to ~0.014c per hour for 10Mbps.
Your fair service charge would be either 60x0.014 + (720-60)x0.14 = $93.24 for 100Mpbs or 60x0.014 + (720-60)x0.11 = $73.44 for 80Mbps.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Handle9

11404 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1324128 13-Jun-2015 17:34

Given that the costs of providing a variable service charge model would remain the same as now the only fair way would for an additional performance charge on top of what you pay now for each Mb/s of service.

You get the regulated level of service and pay for additional speed if it's available. That is unless you are suggesting that ISPs should make a loss on your internet service?

quickymart

13970 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1324143 13-Jun-2015 18:15

airfern: Sideface, not really a logistical nightmare.

There are about 720 hours in one month, so your service costs ~0.14c per hour for 100Mbps and ~0.11c per hour for 80Mbps.
There are 60 out of 720 hours of downgraded service, so 10% would come down to ~0.014c per hour for 10Mbps.
Your fair service charge would be either 60x0.014 + (720-60)x0.14 = $93.24 for 100Mpbs or 60x0.014 + (720-60)x0.11 = $73.44 for 80Mbps.

Sounds like a logistical nightmare.
Everyone who got even slightly reduced speed - even if for all of 10 minutes - in an entire month would call their ISP every month demanding a credit of some sort. Does that sound like a fair and reasonable idea to you?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18665 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1324147 13-Jun-2015 18:31

When you buy or sign up for anything, you agree to the terms and conditions of the seller. I see no reason why these could not be modified in specific cases to include a performance clause. Part of the clause would include definitions, agreed to by both parties, of what constitutes inferior, adequate, and superior performance, each of which would be charged at a different rate. This gives the provider a strong incentive to do better than just meet minimum legal requirements and it compensates the customer if the service is below par, but not bad enough to justify terminating the contract. Why not? This could be a major marketing tool for ambitious companies seeking to attract new business.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

quickymart

13970 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1324152 13-Jun-2015 18:56

So you're quite happy to pay increased prices, because they have to hire hundreds more support staff, just to answer all the calls from customers who got one instance of slow speed in an entire month? Because (I can say this as I've worked in front-line ISP helpdesk roles before) that's exactly what would happen. Not to mention wait times going through the roof. Heaven help if you have to call with a genuine fault but you can't get through for people calling demanding $1 credit as their internet slowed down for 10 minutes in the month.

airfern

22 posts

Geek

Trusted

#1324157 13-Jun-2015 19:09

quickymart:
Everyone who got even slightly reduced speed - even if for all of 10 minutes - in an entire month would call their ISP every month demanding a credit of some sort. Does that sound like a fair and reasonable idea to you?

Are we living in 1980 or 2015? Why need to call ISP on every time? Just link it to the performance measurement logging tool and automate, plenty of options are already available on these days.
Is it so far different from the measured services and goods everyone use daily? Like power metering, water metering, petrol metering, postal weight metering, etc.
Wondering, when I hear something like NZ ISPs are struggling and even a slight broadband price reduction will turn them into the bankruptcy.
Do you know a lot of bankrupted ISPs in New Zealand in the last 10 years? In contrast, I know many did enter the market: http://nztelco.com/?p=851
and there are more to come on each year, while there is such a high margin-market and so many brainwashed customers asserting to "I must pay whatever price I've been told to pay, as there are solid reasons behind it".

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1324163 13-Jun-2015 19:17

airfern:
Do you know a lot of bankrupted ISPs in New Zealand in the last 10 years? In contrast, I know many did enter the market: http://nztelco.com/?p=851
and there are more to come on each year, while there is a such high margin-market and so many brainwashed customers asserting to "I must pay whatever price I've been told to pay, as there are solid reasons behind it".

High margin? You're definitely not talking about the ISP market in New Zealand.

As for this whole variable pricing it really is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen somebody suggest on here! Imagine when somebody doesn't want to pay full price for their internet for a few weeks.. You just go and mess with your wiring and drop your sync speed from 15Mbps to 5Mbps so you pay less.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18665 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1324176 13-Jun-2015 19:32

sbiddle:

As for this whole variable pricing it really is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen somebody suggest on here! Imagine when somebody doesn't want to pay full price for their internet for a few weeks.. You just go and mess with your wiring and drop your sync speed from 15Mbps to 5Mbps so you pay less.

You're being a little harsh, aren't you? I take your point about someone sabotaging their service to lower their price but there might be some scenarios where a variable pricing model could be made to work quite well. Maybe it is a bad idea, maybe not. The only way to know for certain is to at least give it
serious consideration.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

airfern

22 posts

Geek

Trusted

#1324177 13-Jun-2015 19:32

sbiddle:
High margin? You're definitely not talking about the ISP market in New Zealand.

Here we go. So they are struggling and there are so many business masochists around, who'd love to struggle and operate on break-even line, which cause so many of them do register new ISP companies every year.

Imagine when somebody doesn't want to pay full price for their internet for a few weeks...

Imagine when you fill the petrol in your car and pay for a full tank, but just a few times it fills 2/3 of the tank. So this shouldn't bother you or why does it have to? It might be still filled full on the next time you pay, so no worries.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5