Reply from Commerce Commission regarding Broadband 3 matter

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Reply from Commerce Commission regarding Broadband 3 matter

Johnmen

12 posts

Geek

#15891 13-Sep-2007 14:44

I have got the reply from Commerce Commission in regards to the Broadband 3 changes issue that I have come across.

Sad to say but they are not going to do anything about that as they think this is not a case where ISP's breach the Fair Trading Act. The point is that withint the contract that I signed up with i**g, there is a clause there stating i**g is allowed to make changes to the contract with one month notice, even changes that will render the service entirely into a different one.

I have been reminded by ISPs repeatedly that they have that kind of right which is explicitly given by their contract, now reminded by Commerce Commission about that.

I know the purposes of a contract is to bind both parties into it, so that no suprises will happen, but the clause to allow one party to make changes freely on the contract effectively makes the contract unfair to the other party (which is our consumer). And the reality is that we have no choice, every ISP put in that clause to their contract. :-(

Zimsar10

210 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#86556 13-Sep-2007 15:08

Johnmen: I have got the reply from Commerce Commission in regards to the Broadband 3 changes issue that I have come across.

Sad to say but they are not going to do anything about that as they think this is not a case where ISP's breach the Fair Trading Act. The point is that withint the contract that I signed up with i**g, there is a clause there stating i**g is allowed to make changes to the contract with one month notice, even changes that will render the service entirely into a different one.

I have been reminded by ISPs repeatedly that they have that kind of right which is explicitly given by their contract, now reminded by Commerce Commission about that.

I know the purposes of a contract is to bind both parties into it, so that no suprises will happen, but the clause to allow one party to make changes freely on the contract effectively makes the contract unfair to the other party (which is our consumer). And the reality is that we have no choice, every ISP put in that clause to their contract. :-(

Good on you for trying, but I'm hardly surprised at the end result, like most companies they will & do cover nearly every conceivable angle within their contracts.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41071

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#86557 13-Sep-2007 15:08

Why, oh why no spell ut IHUG in your post?

Do you realise that by not spelling out IHUG you make it difficult, if not impossible, for people in the same situation to find your post and help, comment or get help?

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

MikeGayner

183 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#86558 13-Sep-2007 15:56

I believe that, if takent o court, ihug would lose the fight with regard to the FTA. Keep in mind the ComCom is severely overstretched right now, so it's no surprise they're not prosecuting and otherwise censuring ihug in this case.

Zimsar10

210 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#86559 13-Sep-2007 16:17

MikeGayner: I believe that, if takent o court, ihug would lose the fight with regard to the FTA. Keep in mind the ComCom is severely overstretched right now, so it's no surprise they're not prosecuting and otherwise censuring ihug in this case.

I disagree. If the ComCom thought there was a case to investigate further, then they most probably would do so. Clearly this is not the case in this particular situation, as their T&C appears to cover such a change to the said plan.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41071

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#86564 13-Sep-2007 16:32

This is not what contracts are for.

"Seriously, I bought a Chrysler 300C... This is a Toyota Corolla"
"Yes... We changed our price structure yesterday so this is the car you can get, even though you have signed the contract. By the way the contract clearly says we can sell you one thing and deliver another".

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

MikeGayner

183 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#86569 13-Sep-2007 16:42

ZIMsar10:
MikeGayner: I believe that, if takent o court, ihug would lose the fight with regard to the FTA. Keep in mind the ComCom is severely overstretched right now, so it's no surprise they're not prosecuting and otherwise censuring ihug in this case.

...as their T&C appears to cover such a change to the said plan.

T&C's and contract clauses are not a catch-all for bad corporate behavior - The FTA makes substantial consideration for misleading or inappropriate contract terms.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

exportgoldman

1202 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3

Trusted

#86591 13-Sep-2007 19:01

It does seem a bit dumb, but the CC never has had any balls. Good to know I can offer the following now

I will sell you stuff for $79. You agree to 24 months of payments, I agree to selling your whatever I have in my top drawer, or ashtray every month.

Yours sincerely TylerHug

Tyler - Parnell Geek - iPhone 3G - Lenovo X301 - Kaseya - Great Western Steak House, these are some of my favourite things.

MikeGayner

183 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#86595 13-Sep-2007 19:50

I dont think it's fair to say the ComCom has no balls - just in the last 2 years I can think of several very high profile cases in which the ComCom has had successful prosecutions.

exportgoldman

1202 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3

Trusted

#86600 13-Sep-2007 20:34

MikeGayner: I dont think it's fair to say the ComCom has no balls - just in the last 2 years I can think of several very high profile cases in which the ComCom has had successful prosecutions.

Look at the Telecom mess, which CC refused to go to court on, UNTIL years later Labour gave them cover for, and took them to court for crimes committed years previously.

To be fair, the CC has to make a decision to bring a case based on how much it will COST them to try the case, unlike the crown.

Tyler - Parnell Geek - iPhone 3G - Lenovo X301 - Kaseya - Great Western Steak House, these are some of my favourite things.

MikeGayner

183 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user

#86601 13-Sep-2007 20:37

Right, so Government's don't perform cost / benifit analysis?

exportgoldman

1202 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3

Trusted

#86606 13-Sep-2007 20:49

MikeGayner: Right, so Government's don't perform cost / benifit analysis?

Not when prosecuting criminals. The Crown's legal team does not decide to proceed or not on criminal cases based on cost, once they decide they have a criminal case they believe they can win, they have a unlimited budget to prosecute.

When's the last time you heard the Crown say, we wanted to do him for thieft, but it would cost more than he stole.

But when it comes to the Commerce Commission, they have a limited budget, and have to take cases that not only they believe they can win, but also that they can afford.

This is why they didn't go after Telecom and other big companies, because they couldn't afford to (look at the 'Faster AND Cheaper broadband case.)

Tyler - Parnell Geek - iPhone 3G - Lenovo X301 - Kaseya - Great Western Steak House, these are some of my favourite things.