IOL Access Denied for going over limit

OfflerCrocGod

God no I would have pointed out they can't *prove* how may MB I went over exactly (they themselves dont know - that's why they disconnect) and also I then would have asked for my previous months to be taken into a/c, since after all they are basing their charges on use not in providing a fixed service(like say Cable TV), I have been well under the cap since the start of my contract by many GB and they would have been plenty to cover me(3.5GB). Either which way I would have not paid they dont have a DD setup to my a/c.

eth0_

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
God no I would have pointed out they can't *prove* how may MB I went over exactly

Sorry, I was confusing you with the original poster in this thread.
A> They *CAN* prove how many MB you have downloaded, trust me, I know
B> Why should they take into account that you didn't hit your cap in previous months? The download allowance can't be carried over. You agreed (when you signed the contract) to pay per MB if/when you went over cap.

OfflerCrocGod

Originally posted by eth0_
THAT'S WHAT HE SAID!
If you read his posts you see he said he knew from the outset there would be months when he'd go over cap, and he knew about the charges and was willing to pay them. Who's to say he's downloading crap, he could be a graphic designer with a lot of work on atm, but doesn't warrant business dsl because he's not *always* downloading large files.

THAT WAS NOT ME - will ppl stop thinking I started this tread!!!! the guy who started the thread has disappeared:D, many ppl have gotten away with downloading huge amounts and have not been charged, thats what I was hoping for. If ppl have done it before then why is now not do-able it STINKS for many months they didn't care and now they do?. Obviously they want to push ppl toward the more expensive offers like Business ADSL; that just infuriates me!.

MrPinK

God no I would have pointed out they can't *prove* how may MB I went over exactly

Hehehe. So you don't want to be disconnected, you just thought that they'd send you a bill, which you wouldn't pay. I'd imagine that refusing to pay the bill would get you disconnected anyway

eth0_

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
If ppl have done it before then why is now not do-able it STINKS for many months they didn't care and now they do?.

They were lenient since day one, not charging people and only cutting them off if they were REALLY taking the piss with downloads. But obviously the service is now being abused and that's why they're getting tougher with people.
They can't push people towards business. Esat have a very small number of exchanges enabled for their business dsl, so only a small percentage of customers would be able to move to business.

OfflerCrocGod

Originally posted by MrPinK
Hehehe. So you don't want to be disconnected, you just thought that they'd send you a bill, which you wouldn't pay. I'd imagine that refusing to pay the bill would get you disconnected anyway

No I think we are being conned the capacity is there but it's easier for them if we dont use it on them - it's not like we have any choice I can't wait till we get some real BB in this country (can't and won't get IBB).

bluedaemon

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
No I think we are being conned the capacity is there but it's easier for them if we dont use it on them

Of course the capacity is there - remember Global Crossing; they put in a freaking huge fibre optic cable through dublin that goes all around the world a couple times over. Prob is that eircom won't let us near it, they like their monopoly very much thank you and ComReg's regulatory enforcement powers lapsed a couple of months ago and the Dail has yet to renew them (some kind of backlog) so eircom basically has a free for all. Plus their union is threatening strike over anything that harms the company as it owns 30% now, thank you Mary O'Rourke.

This is all no secret, it is just that no one seems to care enough to make eircom unbunde and to separate eircom wholesale from retail.

spongebob

Originally posted by bluedaemon
Prob is that eircom won't let us near it, they like their monopoly very much thank you and ComReg's regulatory enforcement powers lapsed a couple of months ago and the Dail has yet to renew them (some kind of backlog)

Which little birdie toldums that load of codswallop:D?

Plus their union is threatening strike over anything that harms the company as it owns 30% now,

The Union (the CWU) is as fine an example of Pigopoly in operation as any of the so called professions. I wish they did go on strike but you are your own employer when you own 30% so there will be no strike in Eircon in case it harms the company.

This is all no secret, it is just that no one seems to care enough to make eircom unbunde and to separate eircom wholesale from retail.

Have you been at Etains leaving party ......did she cry on your shoulder ?

M

bluedaemon

Originally posted by Muck
Which little birdie toldums that load of codswallop:D?

The ComREg issue was reported in The Irish Times a couple of weeks ago (if you have their subscription service do a search there - i don't so i can't copy it here). It won't apparently be resolved till spring or so.

Originally posted by Muck

The Union (the CWU) is as fine an example of Pigopoly in operation as any of the so called professions. I wish they did go on strike but you are your own employer when you own 30% so there will be no strike in Eircon in case it harms the company.

Strikes don't necassarily harm companies more than they help them. Or perhaps more importantly: the threat of strike doen't necassarily harm companies more than they help them - everyone knows Bertie will do anything for 'industrial peace'.....

Originally posted by Muck

Have you been at Etains leaving party ......did she cry on your shoulder ?

No and no - i just, unlike some apparently <glares />, actually have an interest in seeing real broadbrand (ie 10mbps) delivered at real prices (ie sub-€20 per month).
This would have a huge effect on attracting foreign investment, setting Ireland up as an e-commerce and e-business friendly country, etc. This is something that companies like €ircom are keeping from us through their own short-sightedness - why can't they look at the example of BT in the uk since their new competion-friendly CEO came in.

Moriarty

Once eircom float again later this year we might see a change of heart on their part. While valentia etc continue to asset strip you can forget about it though, its a lost cause under the current management.

bluedaemon

Originally posted by Moriarty
Once eircom float again later this year we might see a change of heart on their part. While valentia etc continue to asset strip you can forget about it though, its a lost cause under the current management.

i would have though that economic conditions would make a major telecom stock flotation economically unwise any time soon and I doubt it would have much chance with small investors after the hurt they got last time.

Ripwave

Originally posted by bluedaemon
i would have though that economic conditions would make a major telecom stock flotation economically unwise any time soon and I doubt it would have much chance with small investors after the hurt they got last time.

The economic conditions are consioderably better now than they were then for telecoms stocks.

What many people don't realize about those small investors is that they weren't given any choice in the matter - nobody in their right mind would have sold their stock at the bottom of the market, unless they had a very short "horizon" (as the major holders definitely do these days). Most of the small shareholders expected to hold onto the stock for 5 or 10 years or longer (those who were out for a quick buck had already sold theirs when they could make a profit).

Once Valentia had acceptances from 80% of the shareholders, the law says that they must buy the remaining stock at the same price. The idea is to protect minority shareholders, who could be left holding worthless shares that couldn't be sold on the open market any more. But, in this case, it meant that the private shareholders (who held less than 20% of the stock between them), were forced to sell their eircom shares for a lot less than they were likely to be worth within a couple of years. The large financial institutions accepted the offer because it was worth more than the market was likely to realize in the shoprt term (6 month to a year), and the ESOT was bribed by being offered 30% of Valentia in return for their 15% of eircom.

To rub salt into the wound, those big financial institutions were able to write off their losses on eircom against any profits they'd made on other stocks that year, so that, if (for example), they made a 10 million profit on StockX, and lost 5 million on eircom, they only had to pay tax on a profit of 5 million. The small shareholders, though, weren't allowed offset their eircom losses against their ordinary income, so, as most of them didn't have any capital gains on other stocks, they were left at a disadvantage.

Fine Gael took a lot of stick from media commentators who were too thick to understand this, when they campaigned for ordinary investors to be able to offset their loss on eircom shares against their ordinary income. (FG didn't call for eircom shareholders to be compensated - they called for them to be treated the same way as active stock traders are treated for tax purposes. It wouldn't have made a huge difference - if you'd made a loss of €1000, the "tax offset" would only have been worth €200 at the time, I think).

bluedaemon

Originally posted by Ripwave
The economic conditions are consioderably better now than they were then for telecoms stocks.

They are better than they were when the company was privatised yes but not yet considerably. And I don't see small investors being willing to re-invest in eircom.

Moriarty

Eircom wouldnt be relying on small investors, theyd be looking for intrest from large investment companys and other telecom companys id reckon.

Ripwave

Originally posted by bluedaemon
They are better than they were when the company was privatised yes but not yet considerably. And I don't see small investors being willing to re-invest in eircom.

"Small investors" won't be asked to invest in Valentia/oreillycom. If the company goes public, they can contact a stockbroker and buy the shares, just as they can with any other public company. Tony O'Reilly and Con Scanlan certainly won't be doing anything to interest the "small investor" specifically.

bluedaemon

Originally posted by Moriarty
Eircom wouldnt be relying on small investors, theyd be looking for intrest from large investment companys and other telecom companys id reckon.

in that case why bother floating. if you are only going to be getting interest from large investment companys (who will be in for the long-haul) and other telecom companys (who will want long-term strategic alliances) there is little point in floating especially in a market like the ISEQ with extremely limited numbers of medium-sized let alone large players.

Moriarty

.... So that valentia can get rid of their stake in it. I thought that was obvious. Valentia only bought eircom to be a short-medium term cashcow. They will be looking to divest themselves of the company to finish the kill, hence the floatation. Valentia have no intrest in telecoms as such, they saw eircom as just another company ripe for the picking.

bluedaemon

Originally posted by Moriarty
.... So that valentia can get rid of their stake in it.

But if as you say the only interested parties will be "large investment companys and other telecom companys " why not just sell privately? floating isn't exactly cheap....

Moriarty

Presumeably because they dont have anyone intrested in buying it outright.

Ripwave

Originally posted by bluedaemon
in that case why bother floating. if you are only going to be getting interest from large investment companys (who will be in for the long-haul)

Huh? No, large investment companies are decidedly not in it for the long haul. If they were, they'd hardly have sold eircom to valentia in the first place, would they?

and other telecom companys (who will want long-term strategic alliances) there is little point in floating especially in a market like the ISEQ with extremely limited numbers of medium-sized let alone large players.

So they won't float on ISEQ. As far as I can remember, Valentia isn't even an Irish registered company.

What you call "Small investors" made up only 20% of the shareholders in eircom, and was a company that we were all told at the time of privatisation was being sold to "the people".

Ripwave

Originally posted by Moriarty
.... So that valentia can get rid of their stake in it. I thought that was obvious. Valentia only bought eircom to be a short-medium term cashcow. They will be looking to divest themselves of the company to finish the kill, hence the floatation. Valentia have no intrest in telecoms as such, they saw eircom as just another company ripe for the picking.

This was one of the more galling aspects of being forced to sell their shares for many small shareholders.

It was pretty obvious that Tony O'Reilly wouldn't be investing his few bob in buying Valentia if it wasn't worth a lot more than he was paying for it.