Am i wrong with this from eircom

dub45

oldmantime wrote: »

I'm not mentioning any horrible wrong, I'm attempting to provide information that may be useful, telling the OP to deal with it doesn't help him. If he was informed his line would be capable of "up to" 24mb when he entered into the contract and was told afterwards it would only be able to achieve "up to" 13mb it's misrepresentation, he probably couldn't pursue damages but he can easily cancel the contract.

Again that is a presumption.

oldmantime

dub45 wrote: »

Again that is a presumption.

No it's not, it's based on probability having regard to everything that has been presented by the OP.

He could also, as I said earlier, possibly claim the contract is void for uncertainty seeing as it has no clear definition of the service that will be provided. I don't have a copy of his contract obviously but contracts for the provision of dsl are typically vague.

Edit: actually, the part of my post you quoted has the situation as I understand it (that's why I say "if" at the start of it) from the OP's telling where he was told he could get "up to" 24mb to induce him to enter into the contract and then was told he could get "up to" 13, IF that is the case he can cancel the contract.

dub45

oldmantime wrote: »

No it's not, it's based on probability having regard to everything that has been presented by the OP.

He could also, as I said earlier, possibly claim the contract is void for uncertainty seeing as it has no clear definition of the service that will be provided. I don't have a copy of his contract obviously but contracts for the provision of dsl are typically vague.

Edit: actually, the part of my post you quoted has the situation as I understand it (that's why I say "if" at the start of it) from the OP's telling where he was told he could get "up to" 24mb to induce him to enter into the contract and then was told he could get "up to" 13, IF that is the case he can cancel the contract.

If you read the ops post again you will see that he does not claim that an agent told him his line was capable of 24. He says the agent told him to go to 24 and this is the proper category for the potential of his line as best we understand it.

It is the op who is claiming that he is paying for 24. Whereas the Eircom website is very clear that the products are "up to".

For the op to make the most of his line he is in the right category so Eircom can claim that the original agent gave the right advice and put him in the correct category.

and when THEY suggested that i go to 24mb broadband

Also the op has used the service for 7 months without a complaint?

Hello, since may 2010 ive been paying for 24mb broadband with eircom. i got the new modem and everything was fine

It is a rare bb user indeed who never checks their speed in 7 months!

oldmantime

greenshadow wrote: »

I asked why was i not told this from other agents and when THEY suggested that i go to 24mb broadband did they not say the max my line can have is 14mb and all she said was yes we are sorry about that but that is how things work...

This suggests that they made a representation that the OP try their "up to" 24mb package.

dub45

oldmantime wrote: »

This suggests that they made a representation that the OP try their "up to" 24mb package.

And that is the category that best suits the potential of his line. What's the problem?

oldmantime

dub45 wrote: »

And that is the category that best suits the potential of his line. What's the problem?

I don't have a problem, the OP clearly does, I'm suggesting remedies.

dub45

oldmantime wrote: »

I don't have a problem, the OP clearly does, I'm suggesting remedies.

And therein lies my point exactly. Is a remedy needed?

oldmantime

dub45 wrote: »

And therein lies my point exactly. Is a remedy needed?

Well he seems to think so, I'm offering him what advice I can. From the knowledge I have of the situation, I'd say it's very likely he's entitled for numerous reasons to break his contract.

D1stant

When you are doing a speed test - what site are you running it from? and where is that site hosted relative to you?

Theres a whole host of equipment between your modem and that site, any of which may be oversubscribed and congested

But I *think* you do have a case if your modem will not train to 24Mbits. If so then they oversold you an unacheivable product. If the modem can train to 24, and you get less then thats due to DSLAM contention, oversubscription etc, and the contracts protects the SPs against that

dub45

D1stant wrote: »

When you are doing a speed test - what site are you running it from? and where is that site hosted relative to you?

Theres a whole host of equipment between your modem and that site, any of which may be oversubscribed and congested

But I *think* you do have a case if your modem will not train to 24Mbits. If so then they oversold you an unacheivable product. If the modem can train to 24, and you get less then thats due to DSLAM contention, oversubscription etc, and the contracts protects the SPs against that

But that is where they are covered from the very beginning. Even in the advertising products are described as "up to".

D1stant

Disagree


If the modem can only train to 14Mbits then "Up to" has no meaning. 14 is the theoetical max, and that if there is no contention anywhere between the OP and the ISP Speed test software. And if so then he was sold a pup

oldmantime

dub45 wrote: »

But that is where they are covered from the very beginning. Even in the advertising products are described as "up to".

It's already been asserted that such a statement isn't sufficient to exempt them from any liability in the provision of a service.

"Up to" as a contract term is probably too vague.

Being induced to enter a contract on the basis that you can get "up to" a speed and then being told you can't get "up to" anywhere near the speed is probably a misrepresentation.

roast

It's up to. Simple as that. I understand your frustration, but there is no misinformation, no breach of contract by the ISP, and no misrepresentation of services. Simple as, you have no legal case against them. :rolleyes:

Its not vague, in fact, its pretty specific: The max you will get is 24mb.


From my experience in the industry, I've heard these kinds of arguments before, and there is no getting around the two simple words: "Up" and "To".

This thread is getting full of crap. I'd highly recommend it to be closed.

oldmantime

roast wrote: »

It's up to. Simple as that. I understand your frustration, but there is no misinformation, no breach of contract by the ISP, and no misrepresentation of services. Simple as, you have no legal case against them. :rolleyes:

Its not vague, in fact, its pretty specific: The max you will get is 24mb.


From my experience in the industry, I've heard these kinds of arguments before, and there is no getting around the two simple words: "Up" and "To".

This thread is getting full of crap. I'd highly recommend it to be closed.

There is a probable case for misrepresentation, I won't say blatant because I can't be sure of the specifics of the contract or what happened afterwards, the difference in maximum attainable line speed is significant (approximately 50%) and seems more than can be reasonably expected.

As for the validity of the contract, the term "up to" is simply too vague by itself as they could provide you with 1bps and still be within it's meaning. The provision of services can't typically be limited by an exclusion clause in the style of "we'll give it to you unless we can't".

I'd also like to note I've broken contracts like this before on similar grounds, it never went to court, it's not worth an isp's time to chase you for at most a couple of hundred euro.

You can further make complaints to the national consumer authority if you feel you are not getting what you contracted for (http://nca.ie/)

Slick50

roast wrote: »

It's up to. Simple as that. I understand your frustration, but there is no misinformation, no breach of contract by the ISP, and no misrepresentation of services. Simple as, you have no legal case against them. :rolleyes:

Its not vague, in fact, its pretty specific: The max you will get is 24mb.


From my experience in the industry, I've heard these kinds of arguments before, and there is no getting around the two simple words: "Up" and "To".

This thread is getting full of crap. I'd highly recommend it to be closed.

And this is one fine example of the type of "crap", you don't know what you are talking about.

Perhaps the OP could clarify if it was pointed out to him that his line could not provide 24mb at the time of the sale or not. If not he was decieved, and can cancel the contract, simple as!

MunsterCycling

Slick50 wrote: »

And this is one fine example of the type of "crap", you don't know what you are talking about.

Perhaps the OP could clarify if it was pointed out to him that his line could not provide 24mb at the time of the sale or not. If not he was decieved, and can cancel the contract, simple as!

Three words sums this up, Pot, Kettle & Black

Slick50

MunsterCycling wrote: »

Three words sums this up, Pot, Kettle & Black

I've listened to this kind of "reasoning" before, with retailers and service providers telling me no you can't do that, or you have no rights. But I have not listened to them and proved them wrong, in one case in the small claims court. So I do know what I am talking about. All too often people put up with this kind of treatment, and accept sh*te service because it is too much hassle to do anything about it. But that does not mean they have to. I have posted links to numerous sites to confirm what I have said.

The bottom line is we do have rights and strong consumer laws to back them up. I have given the OP an honest answer, it is up to him if he wants to follow it up.

goz83

Slick50 wrote: »

I've listened to this kind of "reasoning" before, with retailers and service providers telling me no you can't do that, or you have no rights. But I have not listened to them and proved them wrong, in one case in the small claims court. So I do know what I am talking about. All too often people put up with this kind of treatment, and accept sh*te service because it is too much hassle to do anything about it. But that does not mean they have to. I have posted links to numerous sites to confirm what I have said.

The bottom line is we do have rights and strong consumer laws to back them up. I have given the OP an honest answer, it is up to him if he wants to follow it up.

Right ot Wrong it doesn't really matter. If the OP cancels his contract, they won't chase him for the money, but they will likely refuse the transfer of services to another fixed line provider. Also, there is the chance of receiving a bad credit rating if things get bad. It is a contract after all. If action is to be taken, it all needs to be done properly and recorded. Simply cancelling a DD won't make the problem go away, or it will, but you trade it for another problem.

I stand firm that "IF" the OP was not told about his line limitations, then he was mis-sold, even "IF" he is technically in the correct category. As it was already stated, the isp could serve you the lowest possible speed and still get away with it based on the "up to" contract. As consumers, we need to keep fighting to change this form of advertising/selling.

We also see this form of bully advertising with land lines and mobiles, where you pay x amount for "Unlimited Texts & Calls" only to receive a bill 5 times what you were supposed to pay and be told about a small printed "fair usage policy". They advertise IN BIG WORDS to say you get unlimited usage and then in tiny words, they vaguely mention a fair usage policy, which you have to further investigate. Scam! Thank god I don't use my phone that much, but young adults are being raped with this clause.

The OP (in my professional opinion) has grounds to cancel the contract properly, but he will have to work for it. If he wants money back, the small claims court is the only course of action. The office of the director of consumer rights should also be notified of this. I once brought a case to them regarding false adverting from "3" mobile and they were forced to change all their advertising immediately in the republic. It must have cost them an absolute fortune. All I wanted was them to legitimately cancel my contract, based on the misrepresentation, which they admitted I was sold upon. The proof was in the email (probably why customer care never respond by email). I was just one person, one regular customer who was treated like sh*te and wasn't accepting it. One person can actually make a difference if he/she holds their ground with good reason..

Slick50

goz83 wrote: »

Right ot Wrong it doesn't really matter. If the OP cancels his contract, they won't chase him for the money, but they will likely refuse the transfer of services to another fixed line provider. Also, there is the chance of receiving a bad credit rating if things get bad. It is a contract after all. If action is to be taken, it all needs to be done properly and recorded. Simply cancelling a DD won't make the problem go away, or it will, but you trade it for another problem.

Sound advice. Comreg is probably the first port of call for clarification, they may even make representations on your behalf, also consumerconnect. I don't know if they can refuse to transfer the fixed line to another service provider without a court ruling, can they blacken your credit rating without going to court?. So is it worth your while going to that extreme?, and if so, it is better to do it propely from the outset.

The small claims court is there to sort out consumer issues, and is relatively straight forward. You can make a claim online, it cost €15 to register a claim. You can get full details on the the "court services" web site.

Greenshadow, if you do decide to take this any further, do let us know the result.

goz83

They can refuse the transfer of services to another fixed line provider if:

(a) You are still in contract.
(b) Your account is not yet settled (you owe them cash)

I have seen Eircom cancel line transfers for outstanding bills as low as 12 cents. Another trick they have is when a customer is renting a phone, they can use that as reason not to transfer. There were a number of complaints made in 2006/07 about this tactic, so I don't know if it has changed.

I have also seen Eircom refuse to allow a customer to sign over to another provider, as a result of a previous tenants/owners outstanding bill at same address. Since deregulation, they have only changed with kicking and screaming all the way to the courts.

I don't think the OP should be taking drastic action, because he will not get better dsl speeds with another fixed line isp provider. I would advise caution in future. Ask ALL the questions, even if you think they sound absolutely ridiculous. As it has been shown, the obvious and the stupid is where you get stung. Take names and if it's not too much trouble, record the call and tell the rep you are recording the call for verification purposes. This way, you will be told the truth by any rep you speak to. Sounds extreme, but it will save your bank balance and give you peace of mind.


NOTE: I have worked for Eircom and Meteor (owned by Eircom) on the field. I previously worked on the field for Esat BT (now Vodafone). I have had extensive dealings with all the major comms providers and I am not biased toward any one provider. I am currently a UPC customer and although the service is good, it is not great. I am also an Eircom landline customer. I have seen the positives and negatives from most of the comms providers in my dealings with them as a rep and as a customer.

bealtine

Slick50 wrote: »

Sound advice. Comreg is probably the first port of call for clarification,

Comreg make these "upto" rules and refuse point blank to do anything about it
including the "unlimited" scam. So sure go to Comreg and see how they will defend this situation.

Just to clarify, 24Mb broadband is sold on the basis of what your line can handle, it also covers any speed above 8Mb as it falls into that category.
So 13Mb is a reasonably good speed for a 24Mb package unless you happen to live beside the exchange. No matter how you like to spin it you cannot change the laws of psychics. Perhaps they should have told the OP what his line could handle but the speed is well within tolerances for the package, end of story.

Slick50

bealtine wrote: »

Comreg make these "upto" rules and refuse point blank to do anything about it
including the "unlimited" scam. So sure go to Comreg and see how they will defend this situation.

An up to clause, may be reasonable on a line that has the ability to provide that upper limit. That is not the same as applying that upper limit to a line that does not have even the ability to supply it.

bealtine wrote: »

Just to clarify, 24Mb broadband is sold on the basis of what your line can handle, it also covers any speed above 8Mb as it falls into that category.
So 13Mb is a reasonably good speed for a 24Mb package unless you happen to live beside the exchange. No matter how you like to spin it you cannot change the laws of psychics.

No one has argued that 13mb is not a reasonably good speed, even if the line could support up to 24mb.

bealtine wrote: »

Perhaps they should have told the OP what his line could handle...

This is the whole point. They should have, there is no perhaps about it.

n97 mini

There really is a problem with the way packages are allowed to be sold. Eircom have tested the quality of almost every line in the country and know in advance of what a line is capable of (one of the other ISPs has this database on their website, I'll post a link if I can find it).

However, eircom and others will sell the customer whatever package they want to buy. If your line is on an ADSL2+ exchange they will sell you a 24Mb package if you want to buy it, even if your line is so poor it can only manage a fraction of that. It's a bit disingenuous that they don't tell the customer if the line has been tested for its max speed and what that speed is.

However, afaik while you are in a 12-month contract you can drop down to the lowest package. If you are only getting 11Mb then pay for the 8Mb package and so on.

Also, if you bought online you have a 7-day cooling-off period from the moment you first receive the service (not from the moment you ordered it as Vodafone's staff are telling people on their support forum). If within 7 days you want to send the whole lot back, you can, no questions asked.

n97 mini

n97 mini wrote: »

one of the other ISPs has this database on their website, I'll post a link if I can find it

Put your phone number in here:
http://www.homevision.ie/

My own line is showing as being capable of 12.34Mb

goz83

n97 mini wrote: »

Put your phone number in here:
http://www.homevision.ie/

My own line is showing as being capable of 12.34Mb

LOL. Eircom tried to sell me 24mb bb a couple of months ago. I use UPC happily on the 10mb package. According to that website, my line is only capable of speeds of 2.1. What a joke! Imagine paying for something 12 times slower than advertised.

n97 mini

goz83 wrote: »

LOL. Eircom tried to sell me 24mb bb a couple of months ago.

It's subtle. They probably told you it was available to you to buy -- as presumably your exchange was upgraded to ADSL2+

greenshadow

Slick50 wrote: »

And this is one fine example of the type of "crap", you don't know what you are talking about.

Perhaps the OP could clarify if it was pointed out to him that his line could not provide 24mb at the time of the sale or not. If not he was decieved, and can cancel the contract, simple as!

Ok well, they told me the other day when i rang to see whats the hold up. i had been told before in early December that they would have someone check the line from the outside that there might be to much noise on the line, but they never got back to me.

Until i got lucky and got an agent that just said your line can have max 14m, other agents didn't tell me, neither did the agent who suggested i go to up to 24mb.

The speed test i use is the Eircom speed test

In the end of it all, they didn't tell me i couldn't go past 14mb at the time of the sale, when i said that to the team leader i was talking to she just said "ya we are sorry about that"

n97 mini

Drop down to the next highest speed product below 14Mb and ask eircom for a pro-rata refund on the time your were on 24Mb.

goz83

Also be sure to tell them that you will be contacting comreg about being sold a product they were unable to provide unless they refund you the difference. Be smart, and act like you're doing them a favour by being reasonable. I find it is the best way to get past customer care.

bealtine

goz83 wrote: »

Also be sure to tell them that you will be contacting comreg about being sold a product

Ha ha Comreg...they'll see themselves as being ravaged by a dead sheep.
Comreg really don't care about consumers but if you must try contacting Comwreck then please do.