Sunday, June 21. 2009Contracts - Defining The Situation Between Two PartiesJohn Linton ......not just one (the end user) as so many residential customers seem to assume. Yesterday, I had a pleasant email interchange with an Exetel ADSL customer to whom we had sent a 30 day cancellation notice and he wanted to know why that had happened. As I had previously briefly contacted him in the past he had my email address and thought that he would ask me about the request for him to move to another provider. I explained to him how Exetel's policies worked in terms of providing services at the lowest possible costs to end users of broadband and telephone services and I explained to him, with some of the base arithmetic, how very, very little money we made from providing any single service to any residential user and some of the reasons why we chose to make so little money while risking so much of our own and putting in so much hard work - far more per person than any of our competitors in my opinion. Basically, as the simple arithmetic of providing broadband services clearly shows, Exetel make a little over one dollar a month per service provided (that's an average across all different types of services but it is pretty standard across all services month to month). There are certainly months when we certainly don't make as much as one dollar a service per month and the occasional month when we make a little more than that. He said he was surprised we made so little but understood that many small communications companies go broke trying to compete with the large carriers to provide communications services in Australia so he could see that there could be scenarios such as the one I outlined to him. I don't know whether he actually believed what I said despite him saying he accepted the figures as, like so many people, he shares the relatively common view that "companies" make big profits and all "customers" are hugely profitable for "companies". He also shared the other common view that "companies" never do enough to provide an acceptable service nor do they do enough to resolve any issue with the service when the customer experiences a problem.....and that was his view and he believed that it was appropriate for him to use the TIO to pressure Exetel (his words) in to getting his problem "fixed" although he accepted that there was nothing that Exetel could do at the time, he felt he needed to express his frustration and if it cost his ISP money then "serves them right". He agreed that when his problem was finally traced to a fault within his own premises that it was: a) Entirely of his own causing and only he could resolve it and he should have accepted Exetel's and the carrier's advice that that was there the problem was occurring. b) That the TIO was completely unable to speed up the process of determining and fixing the fault or actually adding anything positive or even useful to the problem resolution process. c) That there was nothing more Exetel could have done at the time or subsequently. ...but he was adamant that he was quite within his rights, when he thought he wasn't getting the right advice from Exetel and the carrier, to involve the TIO (who as it turned out did nothing except charge Exetel for doing nothing except waste expensive time) and thus involve Exetel in significant costs and inconvenience in finally determining that his problems were entirely of his own causing. I didn't disagree with him that he, as an Australian resident, was entitled to take whatever, legal, actions were available to him - even though some legal actions available to him could not and didn't help in any way and in fact delayed eventual resolution and cost unnecessary money - to his supplier. He thought that it OK that he "used the resources available to him" and he was sorry he cost us unnecessary money but he was really annoyed at the time and it must be alright because he now apologised"...... ...and there was the problem....IT IS NOT ALRIGHT....... .......Exetel is caused unnecessary expense by an unreasonable customer and not only don't we make a tiny profit for the 'privilege' of a lot of people working very hard and the owners of the company risking a lot of their personal money for a return that is less than can be achieved by relatively sensible 'passive' investments (no work at all by anyone)....but we actually lost a great deal of money for the 'privilege' of providing this customer with the lowest cost broad band service available in Australia. We lost so much money that even if we provided the service for another ten years we would never recover it. This explanation was given over an exchange of emails ending with the logical conclusion that if a customer believes that Exetel isn't going to do enough to resolve a perceived problem with the service it's the correct course of action to "punish" Exetel by causing them to be put in a position where they can never ever make any money out of providing the service 'for ever' ....then the sensible action for Exetel is to stop providing the service once the initial contract period has been completed. It's also more than sensible for the 'customer' to stop using the service of any supplier that is so remiss in their abilities that the customer believes that they need the intervention of a third party to perform at an acceptable level as soon as their contract ends. Its why there is a contract - of course - so that both parties have a legal and graceful 'exit' from an unsuitable situation. Despite my best efforts he didn't accept that it was reasonable for the 'supplier' to view 'the customer' in the way the contract explicitly provides for the 'customer' to view the 'supplier' - the supply of a service for a fixed term at a fixed price with an end date for the contract's commitments. Either party can end the arrangement if they are dissatisfied with what has been provided in the past or may be provided in the future.....in Exetel's case if we have failed to make money out of a contract then we would prefer not to repeat that mistake - eminently sensible and completely commercially essential. Based on his 'final' email I don't think that particular customer understood the basics of contract law....it doesn't seem to be a two way document in his view. I also never understand why a customer who believes his supplier is incompetent (or worse) doesn't simply churn to a more competent supplier at the first opportunity including when a problem doesn't get fixed "instantly" - provided they are given the opportunity of a penalty-less churn away. Why use the TIO when they can simply churn to a "real" ISP and get whatever problem they are experiencing fixed instantly? So Exetel gain nothing at all - the customer will now hold a new grievance and complain to all and sundry about how unreasonable Exetel is. However the "world and other ISPs" may gain something because these sorts of customers may not be so unreasonable in their dealings with suppliers in the future.....then again....that's quite possibly a forlorn hope. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I assume, that this TIO complaint went to level 4
Table 2 TIO complaint fees $ GST Total Level 1 31 3.10 34.10 Level 2 260 26 286 Level 3 475 47.50 522.50 Level 4 2 250 225 2 475 Level 4 2 650 265 2 915 (Land Access) Is there no mechanism for the member ISP to recover the TIO Fee when a customer is shown to be in the wrong? Comments (2)
Your listed charges are out of date.
As far as I know here are no processes that allow the ISP to get charges reversed. The pont I was trying to make is - that a customer who thinks so badl of their provider they need to use a government agency should just change supplier. Comments (7)
For me to find the (out of date) figures that I did, I looked up the previous annual report for the TIO on their website.
I could not find in their general website that there is a fee that the ISP pays everytime a complaint is made. The entire web site is set up to show what the TIO will do to protect a consumer against a seller of communications products, I could see nothing there to show what the rights of the ISP company was, especially in the case of an incorrect or frivolous claim. So the point I am trying to make is that the TIO website does not immediately represent the fact that it charges the ISPs, and it appears to assume that the customer is always right, in that it does not advertise a process that the ISPs can counter claim against their customers. On your point, I totally agree with the double sided nature of the contract, and Exetel's right to end a commercial agreement. I always advise anyone who I have recommended Exetel to, to always work "with" Exetel support, and never to get high handed or to play the "TIO" card, or threaten to leave, as Exetel will almost always respond with "Please leave. No penalties apply". Comments (2)
..I guess the point is this:
If a customer beleives their ISP is so bad they need support rom a governent department to make something happen what the f*** is the point of continuing to use the service - they should just churn. Their problem (if it's with the ISP) will immediately be rsolved and no more frustration will ensue. I can't see any other way of looking at it. Comments (7)
I think many consumers don't understand a business is not obliged to sell it's products (goods or services) if circumstances dictate that it is not good business practice to do so.
This is reinforced by the "victim" mentality that consumers have against businesses, largely fostered by the current fad of tabloid journalism to "expose" nasty and uncaring business practices, where often it is simply a case of someone not reading / understanding the contract and understanding the rights of both parties. Comment (1)
All of which seems to indicate there should be a fee required to lodge a TIO complaint. If the complaint is proven the fee could be refunded otherwise the fee should be lost.
Comment (1)
That's a really good idea. Even if the fee is only $20 it'll still make people think twice.
Comment (1)
Unrelated to todays post, but ISP related none the less, somehow I fell into going to the iiNet/WestNet quiz night on Saturday night.
I was blown away by the sheer number of employees they had in the two companies! 90% of them under 30 and of those many under 25. No doubt to pander to all the whinging customers wanting their hands held when setting up their email and the like. I wondered if they could have this many staff at a quiz night, how many staff did they have in total to keep the company running! So well done for not turning into that pile of wasted resources. When they move into their new offices in July, next door to where I work the parking will become intollerable. Comment (1)
It always surprises me when I see thosesorts of numbers.
Comments (7)
Would you ever start to terminate the accounts of people who used 100% of their quota every month but does not go to the TIO and has minimal support requirements?
Comment (1)
Why would we do such a thing?
I have spelled out why we believe that people who are so dissatisfied with their ISP that they use a government agency to attempt to improve their ISP's service clearly shouldn't remain with that ISP. I can't think why any ISP would choose to offer some download for a price and then ask the customer to leave if they used that. Comments (7)
"I can't think why any ISP would choose to offer some download for a price and then ask the customer to leave if they used that."
Actually John, the idea that this is Exetel policy is a very common misconception among not just detractors but many current customers as well. To wit, WP forums! I don't know if you would feel it prudent to dispel this myth explicitly and more publicly; but I'm sure it would help allay the fears of some potential new users. Cheers! Comment (1)
If there is anyone who thinks that, then they would have to be either paranoid or just plain stupid.
Either way nothing will change the minds of such people....except perhaps increasing their dosage of their drug of prescription/choice. Comments (7)
|
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesBlog AdministrationExternal PHP Application |