Telecom Prosecuted for Go Large False Advertising

Forums › Spark New Zealand › Telecom Prosecuted for Go Large False Advertising

JonC

425 posts

Ultimate Geek

# 19002 1-Feb-2008 11:07

Well, the comcom has finally gotten around to prosecuting Telecom for false advertising over its Go Large "unlimited data usage and all the internet you can handle" adverts. We were discussing this a year ago when they canned the plan - http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?ForumId=49&TopicId=11985

Link to Stuff article

1 | 2

2483 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4

Trusted

# 107946 1-Feb-2008 11:24

At least now we can see some action.

Companies found guilty of breaching the Act may be fined up to $200,000.

That wasn't as much as they refunded all of their customers (including me).

Find me on Twitter!

I posted 1, 2 x 10^3 times!

hellonearthisman

1819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

# 107981 1-Feb-2008 14:19

$200,000 is nothing compared to the ads they had pushing there lies.

They should loose the option to get a 2nd radio spectrum packet.
(Telecom seeks permission to buy radio spectrum)

nzbnw

2366 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 13

Trusted

Spark

# 107994 1-Feb-2008 15:26

hellonearthisman: $200,000 is nothing compared to the ads they had pushing there lies.

They should loose the option to get a 2nd radio spectrum packet.
(Telecom seeks permission to buy radio spectrum)

Please, why should this have anything to-do with radio spectrum, which afaik is required for 4G LTE networks. What you have said just makes no sense what so ever.

nzbnw

gehenna

5528 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1538

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 107997 1-Feb-2008 15:37

nzbnw:
hellonearthisman: $200,000 is nothing compared to the ads they had pushing there lies.

They should loose the option to get a 2nd radio spectrum packet.
(Telecom seeks permission to buy radio spectrum)

Please, why should this have anything to-do with radio spectrum, which afaik is required for 4G LTE networks. What you have said just makes no sense what so ever.

nzbnw

I agree. Telecom should be made to provide the service they promised to customers. If they can't, they should be made to ensure that they can provide it within a certain timeframe, with penalties applying for each day over that deadline that their service is not as advertised.

hellonearthisman

1819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

# 108002 1-Feb-2008 15:50

nzbnw:
hellonearthisman: $200,000 is nothing compared to the ads they had pushing there lies.

They should loose the option to get a 2nd radio spectrum packet.
(Telecom seeks permission to buy radio spectrum)

Please, why should this have anything to-do with radio spectrum, which afaik is required for 4G LTE networks. What you have said just makes no sense what so ever.

nzbnw

What it has to do with anything is 'telecom wants it, but they should not get it, because they are have been evil with there business.
If you are going to punsih someone, for stealing, you don't give them tool's to steal more and grow their evil empire.

STOP RIPPING OFF THE PEOPLE, that being evil.

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8477 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 108006 1-Feb-2008 16:07

hellonearthisman: What it has to do with anything is 'telecom wants it, but they should not get it, because they are have been evil with there business.
If you are going to punsih someone, for stealing, you don't give them tool's to steal more and grow their evil empire.

STOP RIPPING OFF THE PEOPLE, that being evil.

Wow. At this point I feel compelled to stop lurking in this thread and (re)state the obvious:

Telecom voluntarily gave refunds to its customers after (finally) conceding to the fact that they had not provided what they said they would.

Ripoff would imply that that they intentionally underdelivered to gain revenue (which in light of their voluntary refund without impending court action, clearly shows that there was no intention to ripoff/defraud, whatever).

Telecom is not an evil empire, they are a successful privately owned company who have been doing their legally obligated duty to look after their shareholders investment. The loop is being unbundled, competitive services exist, NDSL is in the baby stages, tell me - where is the evil you speak of, because its an old argument, which just doesn't add up these days.

If Telecom doesn't provide a service (SIP, nDSL, VDSL, roaming, whatever), people moan (lack of investment). If they do provide it people moan (anti-competive). If they want to provide it, people try and prevent it (anti-competitive), if they want to stop providing it, people try and prevent that too (025).

Perhaps the pathological Telecom haters should vote with their feet, and move every last dollar of their business to another provider?

It amazes me the amount of customers of any business that hold the entity up to ransom in public as 'evil' (or worse), and yet won't give up the service because "its the best available" or "its the cheapest" or "its the only one that supports what we do" or "the wonderful, good-citizen competitor(s) don't provide service here". Perhaps the provider in question is not so bad after all?

C'mon people, ignore the things that have ceased to be perpetuated by Telecom, and look at the here and now.

Where is the current evil?

Where is the current anti-competitive actions?

Where are the problems?

Im not denying any of the above exist - they may well do - and if so, lets hear about it!

Constructively yours,

Tony Hughes

gehenna

5528 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1538

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 108010 1-Feb-2008 16:15

I agree with all that, and they're to be commended for providing redunds to customers. That said, there should still be some enforcement to supply the service that they advertised. If they can't do that then there has to be a consequence equal to its implication. We can't be in left in a position as consumers where a large, and somewhat trusted, corporation advertises a service they can't deliver resulting in consumer uptake of the service. If that door is opened enough that Telecom aren't feeling the pinch from the results of any punishment, then where is the incentive to not screw consumers again.

Mind you this is all speculation at the moment, this whole argument is based on the fact that they "allegedly" mislead consumers.

hellonearthisman

1819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

# 108019 1-Feb-2008 16:48

Telecom is now under new heads, so, I'm hopeful for a change.

Didn't telecom only give a percentage of what made and pocketed the rest, well after the mobs where gathering.
Was it also that the refund was a token used in it's delaying of the unbundling, just to make them look good.

Anticompetitive, I think opening a test exchange for to let other operators put the own gear into an exchange, then rolling out the first lot of cabernet fibre plans at the same location, licking the competition, like an evil child who tosses a stick into ice river for his dog to get, then hiding from the dog while it's in the water..

I don't see telecom doing a thing for the public good, not if they can make excessive profit from it.
It's just my own perception anyway. I'm sure there are people trying to make things better.
I just can see it here on my street.

KiwiOverseas66

173 posts

Master Geek

# 108022 1-Feb-2008 17:06

LOL - these sorts of arguements are hilarious as its one of those issues where emperical evidence goes out the window and the arguement quickly moves into the realms of religion. Evil empire! What...do you think this is a star wars movie or something? Maybe cocom and the rest of the rebel alliance will come flying in to deal defeat to the Telecom death star!

I don't know - I'm sure cocom are doing a good job but sometimes I wonder if maybe they have too much time on their hands? I remember a few years ago a cocom court cases when they took Telecom to court regarding a water helpline operated in canterbury. Again Telecom were accussed of misleading the public as one user who thought the service was free - had discovered he had been charged for using the line (turns out the service should have informed users that there was a charge - but the recording had suffered an error and was not telling users when they phoned in). So off to court they went - lawyers from both side, full session of the court, etc. Do you know what the outstanding amount was that Telecom was being taken to court for? 86 cents. Of course - it was a matter of principle. Wonder how much the whole tax payer funded exercise cost for the sake of a gold coin. Then there was that complaint about the Xtra competition where the prize was a trip to space - until some nerd complained that the jet flight only went to the upper stratosphere which is not defined as outerspace! Hell....I wouldn't mind an all exspense paid ride in a MIG! And if you don't like the upper stratosphere then don't apply for the competition!

As pointed out previously - Telecom have already compensated for the go-large fiasco, as they did for the Xtra bubble disaster, etc. I don't know about you guys but with a lot of these events I get the impression that Telecom are more guilty of stupidity then deception (i.e - they go hell for leather to launch a new product/ service without really knowing what they are doing or whats going to happen).

As for advertising claim - anyone here believe they can really go to a chemist and buy an anti-aging cream that will "visibly reduce signs of aging"? yeah....right.

grant_k

3539 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 125

Trusted

# 108024 1-Feb-2008 17:16

KiwiOverseas66: I don't know - I'm sure cocom are doing a good job but sometimes I wonder if maybe they have too much time on their hands?

The other thing with many of these ComCom actions is how long after the event it all happens.

In this case, it's not too bad -- only about 15 months -- but I remember reading recently about a ComCom action that was finally dropped regarding Telecom's sale of Bundled Internet & Toll Calling specials dating back to 2004

I mean what really is the point when it goes back so far?

hellonearthisman

1819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

# 108025 1-Feb-2008 17:25

KiwiOverseas66: LOL - these sorts of arguements are hilarious as its one of those issues where emperical evidence goes out the window and the arguement quickly moves into the realms of religion. Evil empire! What...do you think this is a star wars movie or something? Maybe cocom and the rest of the rebel alliance will come flying in to deal defeat to the Telecom death star!

LOL - i guess I'm guilty on that one :)

KiwiOverseas66

173 posts

Master Geek

# 108026 1-Feb-2008 17:37

lol!

hey...I'm still looking for that anti ageing cream. (notice too that it doesn't just stop ageing - its "anti - ageing", so by definition it should make me young again)! Right....where's my wallet.....off to the chemist.......

cokemaster

Nate wants an iphone
3906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 33

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 108032 1-Feb-2008 18:07

I think certain individuals are probably getting to involved, my recommendation is to take a step back and look at the real world. There are no evil guys, no good guys - they all want provide services for money.

I agree with tonyhughes and KiwiOverseas66.

webhosting |New Zealand connections | geekzone IRC chat
Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

Yahn

57 posts

Master Geek

# 108043 1-Feb-2008 19:13

Nah ! They really are an evil empire. 8-)

gi99a

32 posts

Geek

# 108054 1-Feb-2008 20:16

I'm still waiting to be mislead by telkecom... LOL..

as far as I know, GO LARGE was an ulimited plan, it was never primarily about speed.

Telecom gave customers an unlimited plan... period... it was also mentioned that it was "unleashed" meaning Telecom removed the constraints on the downstream side (MAX). Some other plans (Pro, Express) were also "MAX'd" upstream. they only gave what customers asked for. And lets face it, you cant please everyone...

The problem was they just didn't get the fair use policy right. noob leechers creamed the available bandwidth and even used little hacks to avoid the traffic management system (uTorrent springs to mind)....

ok, so they left it for a while, possibly denied there was a problem, then after no result / complaints and ability to provide a good experience, they canned it. they even allowed those on it to remain but could not sign up new customers. They gave some compensation and a miliion to charity as well as a public apology.

"It was a year ago, Michael...Let it go" (courtesy of a Voguls bread advert)...

1 | 2