Friday, September 24. 2010Dealing With The Incomprehensibly Complex, Bizarre and IllogicalJohn Linton It seems that there are becoming an endless succession of forms and questionnaires that need to be completed by the nanny state we now live in. Throughout its 'life' to date Exetel has been mercifully free of commonwealth and state interference (apart form paying payroll tax to the NSW government, GST, PAYG and withholding taxes to the Federal government and all the efforts and cost those 'protection monies' involve. Undoubtedly due to our size (and the fact that we are honest and ethical as well as being straightforward) we have 'escaped the attentions' of the mindless clerks employed in the sheltered workshops known as the ACCC and ACEMA. This week though we have had two sensibly qualified people (plus time from all sorts of other people) taken up with 'compliance' issues. The minor of the two intrusions from the lick-spittles of the Labor nanny state was from the ACCC who objected to our presentation of pricing on our web site ADSL pricing pages. Now, with minor changes we have set out our ADSL pricing in the same way since we commenced business almost 7 years ago. Over that time I can't recall ever receiving any comment, let alone complaint, that the way the pricing is displayed is anything but unequivocally clear. The ACCC insisted that we "show a prospective buyer the total cost over the period of the contract". There I was, thinking that anyone with the mental capacity to open a url , would by definition have the numeracy to see that he/she would have to pay the monthly cost (shown under the column heading = "Monthly Cost" for the number of months specified under the column heading = Contract Term". I was also of the opinion that that this same prospective customer would be able to understand that they would also have to pay the amount specified under the column heading = "Activation Charge" in addition to the number of monthly payments. Apparently not. Apparently people who visit Exetel's web side can do none of those things. Apparently Exetel was in breach of many and varied recently promulgated conditions of various acts and was liable to massive fines and possibly company closure. "Who are these guys"? (as, if I remember correctly, Butch Cassidy once wondered). I don't know what I found more surprising - that some idiot in the Federal Parliament actually wasted the time it would have taken to get this nonsense developed and passed by the houses or that some drone could actually express the views in the letter I received and subsequently expanding them over the telephone without bursting out into hysterical laughter at the Kafkaesque wording of the documents they quote from. So we changed the layout of the pricing pages and performed the kindergarten calculations demanded by the ACC and went back to the real world..... ....only to be confronted with a much longer peroration from ACEMA demanding information that surpassed Kafkaesqueism and devolved to the nonsensical realms of Charlie Dodgson. Not only were the requests for information nonsensical but they demanded lengthy answers containing immense quantities of information that could not, by any reasonable understanding of how a business actually operates, actually exist. A very sensible person within Exetel, now aided by a second sensible person, is attempting to provide rational answers to questions that only a person of the mental outlook of the Queen of Hearts could contemplate seriously. The combined efforts of sensible people will be able to produce a semblance of a response within the required time frame but it begs a very serious question. What sort of mentally challenged idiot, or group of idiots, could have framed the questions in the first place? Perhaps more importantly - what on Earth are they going to do with the answers they receive from the companies that are forced to respond to them? I suppose it explains how the screech owl is able to say "affordable high speed fibre broadband for the whole of Australia" in her strangled syllables and keep a straight face. Copyright © Exetel Pty Ltd 2010 Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Sorry, once again I'm not with you John - well not on the ACCC front. Requiring total costs when component pricing is used is a good reform and it takes little work from a company like Exetel to actually provide it. In fact it is to your advantage. While Exetel is up front with the component costs, your competitors may not be and some people in the general marketplace were clearly not being up front. That's why the component pricing rules were introduced. As for it's usefulness, an example... When assessing Telstra deals with the various discounts etc, it is the total price over the contract and the conditions to meet that that gives the clearest picture. Otherwise the choice is to read pages of fine print.
You know Exetel is being up front but a potential customer (with experience of other companies) does not. The bottom line figure shows you are being up front. The simple calculation shows the relationship of your components to the total you give. (Not that I think Exetel are always "up front". I would argue an $3 administration fee on older plans is not particularly up front. It is above board and legal, but not up front. As people can't avoid the $3 fee without changing to a new plan, all that is really happening is an increasing in the price of the old plans by $3 a month. To evaluate the cost of an old plan to a new plan requires more than just assessing the monthly charge.) Comments (3)
I defy anyone who visits a Telstra web site to actually understand what the charges for anything are - including the small print that appears to comply with the various requirements of the TPA.
As Exetel's pricing has ALWAYS been unequivocally clear it is a pointless exercise to do some simple arithmetic that anyone buying the products should be more than capable of doing themselves. That is simply my opinion - Exetel always obeys the laws of the land. Comments (3)
Absolutely agree on the Telstra comment. The pricing is extremely complicated with them and "discounts" usually only amount to bringing over priced product back to the "market" price.
It is very hard to properly determine real actual costs and permutations with Telstra pricing. You can't look at a product without considering carefully if it applies stand alone or as a "bundle" reward / benefit. On some rare occasions, value can be found, only to discover you may not have looked hard enough for the catch. Counting uploads and non-availability of an included static IP on some product options are deal breakers for many (one or both items) too -- that is if a true reasonable deal can be had on Telstra. Comments (4)
So we changed the layout of the pricing pages and performed the kindergarten calculations demanded by the ACC and went back to the real world.....
Unfortunately, whoever was tasked with the job of doing those calculations, forgot to add the $3 admin fee into the totals. (even though it states at the bottom that the admin fee has been added) At least for the few that I checked. (1 Minimum Total Cost for 1500/256 ADSL1 plans over 6 months contract term = (Line Activation Charge) + (6 Months) x (Monthly Access Charge) + (6 Months) x ($3 Account Admin fee) . Early termination fees apply.) Comment (1)
It looks to me like the Optus plans have the $3 admin fee in the calculation, but the Telstra plans do not
Comment (1)
I've passed your comments, and the others, on to the person responsible.
Comments (3)
The $3 account admin fee is only per account though so if you have more than one service the calculation would be incorrect, not easy meeting all these requirements, every industry seems to suffer some similar tomfoolery from the government from some departments that seem to exist solely for the purpose of controlling the nanny state we live in
Comment (1)
This is not clear at this time. The question was asked multiple times on the agent forum, but that thread has been closed without an answer.
Previously the admin fee was "per account" and a single account could be one termed as a "master account". Today such information is not clear and clarification has not yet been forthcoming. All that "seems" clear is that there is now a fee on ALL plans that are ADSL1 or ADSL2 regardless of whether the plan previously attracted the fee or not. Please Exetel, clarify if the "account" fee is per account or per service. This is required information, particularly when some agents may be re-billing services to clients, such as Mike and myself. Comments (4)
In my case, the customer is set up with Exetel under their own name. The only thing I do is have my bank account as the payment source, so I have no opportunity to avoid the $3 fee. I figured that's how any proxying agent did it?
Agent support is quite helpful whenever strange things happen, which is quite rare fortunately My guess is that it only applies in rare circumstances where a customer has two or more ADSL services billed to them directly. Comment (1)
I received an email advising of the $3 Admin Fee starting in October. I thought about changing plans and wondered if it applied to new plans as well as old and looked in the ADSL "Change Plan" page in Member Facilities.
As I couldn't find any reference to it there, I called Exetel Sales to clarify whether it applied to current plans as well as old plans and she said it did and so changing plan would not eliminate the fee. Maybe I missed something. Comments (2)
Yes, the situation of the older plans WAS that you could avoid the plan change fee by changing plans and for many that actually meant you were paying Exetel less monies overall for more, aside from the once off plan change fee.
Now if you have any ADSL1 or ADSL2 service, then a fee will apply. Again, it is not clear if such fee will apply more than once if you have multiple DSL services on the same master account. Comments (4)
Uggh, sorry, I wish we could edit our own posts here.
Obviously I meant that the "admin fee" could be avoided with a plan change. Comments (4)
I'm on the opposite of the ACCC. I think seeing a number $576 is meaningless.
I have to think, $576 is a lot of money for the Internet (not really but you know). Then I wonder.. over how many months am I paying to get to the $576, right.. 12 months. Then my next question comes, how much is that PER MONTH! because those numbers I can work with, I know how much I earn and spend per month. geez. Nanny state indeed. Comment (1)
I think the "person responsible" has proven just how simple those "kindergarten calculations" are.
The usefulness has already been demonstrated with the confusion over a $3 account admin fee. To illustrate the usefulness in another seeing look at http://go.bigpond.com/broadband/index.jsp and the "minimum cost" points (1) & (2). The minimum cost of BigPond Turbo 2GB Liberty ("from $9.99" per month) is the same as BigPond Elite 2GB Liberty ("from $19.99" per month). The advantage is it shines a light on bundling, high connection charges, hidden fees etc. It is nearly useless in isolation but quite helpful in conjunction with plan details. Comments (3)
"The person responsible" took the view that a 'future' charge would be included when the 'future' arrived.
However it is really immaterial because it has now been changed. In terms of whether it applies to ALL ADSL plans the ACCC requirements makes it impossible to now apply it as an account charge (once per customer irrespective of the number of services) and it now applies to each of the plans a customer may be buying. It is all a complete waste of time and money - it assists no-one. Comments (3)
The pages in the Member Facilities also need updating as the future as already arrived there. Any plan change made now will incur the $3.00 fee when the plan change takes effect in October.
Comments (2)
John, I know you get annoyed at these things, but your hyperbole may be misinterpreted - like this.....
(*In terms of whether it applies to ALL ADSL plans the ACCC requirements makes it impossible to now apply it as an account charge...*) (*Impossible*) - really? It is not impossible. The ACCC has component pricing guidelines or you could read the Trade Practices act itself. As most of your website is offering "New Connections", I suspect the $3 is quantifiable and ought to be included. If you were offering "additional connections on an existing account" - as you might in the users section, you could leave the $3 out. You could also give two "minimum costs" based on whether someone was or was not an account/ADSL holder. My understanding is that is completely valid. Perhaps it is a waste of your time and money but it "assists no-one" might be a bit of a strech - unless you're omniscient! It has helped stop some practices in the airline industry (not inc additional charges for example). I've seen it assist people and used it myself. I think there is value in the legislation and some minor inconvenience to companies like you who simply need to add a few extra lines of code to your php scripts. Comments (3)
As always, the sooner you swap out the surcharge-'generative'users' the sooner Exetel can be able to restore everybody else's (competitive, reliable) prices to normal.
I can smell Marketing-BS a kilometre away - like anybody else. How about a genuine offer of Uncounted downloads; ~longer~ hours than in the previously 7years And half (yes, half) the 'Data'. Comment (1)
|
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesBlog AdministrationExternal PHP Application |