Meteor are lame

jojojnr

Please remember to ask 3 for an Upgrade in 12 months time and come back here and tell us how you get on.

Enjoy using your S2 until June 2013

partyatmygaff

Have they really started to introduce 24 month contracts over here? Tbh, signing up to a phone contract for anything over 18 months is ridiculous.

eyesofvenus

jojojnr wrote: »

Please remember to ask 3 for an Upgrade in 12 months time and come back here and tell us how you get on.

Enjoy using your S2 until June 2013

Too bad I haven't actually signed any contracts with three yet, so unfortunately i don't think i'll be able to grant you your wish, as above poster has stated 24 months is mad for a phone which i have taken into consideration.

I'll buy an s2 outright and then i'll consider selling it to you in june 2013, how about that? :P

jojojnr

eyesofvenus wrote: »

Too bad I haven't actually signed any contracts with three yet, so unfortunately i don't think i'll be able to grant you your wish, as above poster has stated 24 months is mad for a phone which i have taken into consideration.

I'll buy an s2 outright and then i'll consider selling it to you in june 2013, how about that? :P

You cancelled your Meteor contract and paid the early cancellation fee. Then you say "Which is ok now, three have got my business now instead".

"Have got" suggests you had signed a contract.

My mistake?

eyesofvenus

jojojnr wrote: »

You cancelled your Meteor contract and paid the early cancellation fee. Then you say "Which is ok now, three have got my business now instead".

"Have got" suggests you had signed a contract.

My mistake?

They have my business providing i sign the contract, i applied online via their application process, sorry should have pointed that out

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

krudler

eyesofvenus wrote: »

Yet ive been in a bill contract for the last 4 years and never missed payments or no other problems...

i love how people on these forums continuously feel the need to tell you what you should/shouldn't do purely because you think outside the box and maybe stand up for yourself as a paying customer.

I went through the motions with meteor, have paid off my contract, didn't leave any arrears, all of which im entitled to do if im not happy with the service/contract

Whyyyy do people point out they pay their bills as some sort of shining award to themselves, you're supposed to pay them! paying your bills on time doesnt make you some super duper customer, you're paying for a service the network is providing you, you're not paying them out of the goodness of your own heart, you're contracted to do so, its right there in the t&cs about paying bills in a timely manner.

KevArno

krudler wrote: »

Whyyyy do people point out they pay their bills as some sort of shining award to themselves, you're supposed to pay them! paying your bills on time doesnt make you some super duper customer, you're paying for a service the network is providing you, you're not paying them out of the goodness of your own heart, you're contracted to do so, its right there in the t&cs about paying bills in a timely manner.

Aaah, a sensible post!

bd250110

People seem to think that the contract should only be binding on the network, not themselves.
Remember when Meteor changed their T&C's and most of the country jumped on the cancellation (fair play, I would have too). This is pretty much the other side of the coin. Meteor (and company which entered a mutually binding contract) have a responsibility to provide you a service, you have a responsibility to pay for it. the contract can not be changed unilaterally, just because you feel like it.

superfish

what a pack of whining gooddie two shoes "you must see your contract out its in the t&c, I dont see why anyone who does not work for meteor should give a ****e

Kensington

superfish wrote: »

what a pack of whining gooddie two shoes "you must see your contract out its in the t&c, I dont see why anyone who does not work for meteor should give a ****e

Why do you give a "****e" about it, or what anyone else thinks about it then?

superfish

Kensington wrote: »

Why do you give a "****e" about it, or what anyone else thinks about it then?

I dont, just reading through this thread and got me wondering why are people so concerned for meteors welfare unless they work there

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

superfish

Captain Morgan wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

exactly

krudler

superfish wrote: »

what a pack of whining gooddie two shoes "you must see your contract out its in the t&c, I dont see why anyone who does not work for meteor should give a ****e

its more to do with the shocking lack of responsibility and "I want I want I want" culture mobile phone users have. People seem to think phone networks run themselves with no costs and should just bend over backwards to suit every customer whenever they want.

superfish

krudler wrote: »

its more to do with the shocking lack of responsibility and "I want I want I want" culture mobile phone users have. People seem to think phone networks run themselves with no costs and should just bend over backwards to suit every customer whenever they want.

they should, we pay them and dont forget the customer is always right :pac:

Kensington

superfish wrote: »

dont forget the customer is always right :pac:

Except when they're wrong

KevArno

Superfish, I think you misread the intent behind many of the responses. People opposing the OP are not whining, or whinging about anything. It is the OP that came here complaining.

And I don't think anyone here has had a pro-Meteor stance, just trying to show the OP that it was his obligation (legally!) to abide by the contract, and that the other networks will not be much kinder... Hardly goodie two shoes of us to expect people to stand by their word and signed contracts. I see a lot of this attitude in this country, little guy turns his back on obligations and is lauded as a hero, but when the wealthy or those in power act in the same way they are villified.

He posted here in the forum looking for people to discuss it, and I think we are, no point in expecting everyone to row in behind him and support his position (it would be all very boring if we did and there would be no thread)

eyesofvenus

KevArno wrote: »

Superfish, I think you misread the intent behind many of the responses. People opposing the OP are not whining, or whinging about anything. It is the OP that came here complaining.

And I don't think anyone here has had a pro-Meteor stance, just trying to show the OP that it was his obligation (legally!) to abide by the contract, and that the other networks will not be much kinder... Hardly goodie two shoes of us to expect people to stand by their word and signed contracts. I see a lot of this attitude in this country, little guy turns his back on obligations and is lauded as a hero, but when the wealthy or those in power act in the same way they are villified.

He posted here in the forum looking for people to discuss it, and I think we are, no point in expecting everyone to row in behind him and support his position (it would be all very boring if we did and there would be no thread)

I do love creating a good moaning session Don't take what I said too seriously, i'm well aware of my stance in regards a contract. No harm chancing your arm, I haven't done anything illegal

seabre

bd250110 wrote: »

It's not about spending more money, or less money. You are in contract, one you freely entered into. Meteor are under no obligation whatsoever to chance the contract. From their point of view they would loose significant revenue if they let you do what you suggest. They would be effectively be giving you a 33% discount for the first 6 months, why would, or should, they let you do that?

Perhaps they should let him do it as he has been a loyal customer for @ 5 years!!!

I think Meteor are being very unfair about this - effectively they are treating their loyal customers in an extremely poor manner in favour for the stranger who walks in off the street! I too have been with Meteor for 7 years - worked out I've paid at least 5000 euro over that period - never had a DD unpaid and yet they would prefer to give this iphone to a new customer than to me - pathetic Customer Relations in my opinion.

krudler

superfish wrote: »

they should, we pay them and dont forget the customer is always right :pac:

Anyone who's ever worked with the public can attest to the fact the customer is rarely right. stupid, rude, ignorant and childish sure, but right? about 2% of the time. If I ever meet who came up with that phrase they're getting a kick in the balls.

KevArno

seabre wrote: »

Perhaps they should let him do it as he has been a loyal customer for @ 5 years!!!

I think Meteor are being very unfair about this - effectively they are treating their loyal customers in an extremely poor manner in favour for the stranger who walks in off the street! I too have been with Meteor for 7 years - worked out I've paid at least 5000 euro over that period - never had a DD unpaid and yet they would prefer to give this iphone to a new customer than to me - pathetic Customer Relations in my opinion.

Ok I have a feeling that it's pointless saying this as it will never get through to people with opinions as unfounded as that but anyway here goes. You paid at least €5000... whoop di doo... you used €5000 worth of Meteors services, its not like the cost of the service provided was a mystery to you at the time, and you obviously figured that it was worth the money! Another thing that people seem to forget is that Meteor did not make €5000 from you. Every customer costs Meteor money to provide the service. They have profit margins to consider, and in these margins are allowances for the costs of handsets along with all the other peripherals that go along with running the company to the standards that their customers will accept. Ok??

Shorter contract times means less margins, and means costs need to be made up else where. So, either people in Meteor lose jobs, resulting in poorer service to the customer, or the tariff pricings go up and the initial payment on the phone goes up.

Seriously the sense of entitlement here is astonishing... Have any of the people with an view similar to the OP's ever been in business for themselves as a matter of curiousity? One thing I have discovered is that there is a fine line between treating your customers well, and foolish business practices. Don't think of any of the big 4 mobile operators in Ireland right now as being foolish.

seabre

KevArno wrote: »

Ok I have a feeling that it's pointless saying this as it will never get through to people with opinions as unfounded as that but anyway here goes. You paid at least €5000... whoop di doo... you used €5000 worth of Meteors services, its not like the cost of the service provided was a mystery to you at the time, and you obviously figured that it was worth the money! Another thing that people seem to forget is that Meteor did not make €5000 from you. Every customer costs Meteor money to provide the service. They have profit margins to consider, and in these margins are allowances for the costs of handsets along with all the other peripherals that go along with running the company to the standards that their customers will accept. Ok??

Shorter contract times means less margins, and means costs need to be made up else where. So, either people in Meteor lose jobs, resulting in poorer service to the customer, or the tariff pricings go up and the initial payment on the phone goes up.

Seriously the sense of entitlement here is astonishing... Have any of the people with an view similar to the OP's ever been in business for themselves as a matter of curiousity? One thing I have discovered is that there is a fine line between treating your customers well, and foolish business practices. Don't think of any of the big 4 mobile operators in Ireland right now as being foolish.

I am in business myself and I can assure you that if I were to offer a deal to one customer and not the other I would indeed be pulled on it and rightly so. It is precisely due to this attitude that customers of these major companies are treated so poorly. We in Ireland seem to have this meek attitude that we are in some way under a compliment to these companies for providing a service - that we pay them very well for. Truth is they should be constantly challenged to provide better more competitive services and standards for consumers if they are to thrive in the marketplace.

Any private trader knows how hard it is to build up and maintain a decent client base and clients that show loyalty should be rewarded not penalised. If Meteor in this situation were to be out of pocket in providing the desired service to their existing customers I would understand but they would be no worse off than they are making this offer to new customers. Infact they wouldnt be losing any customers so they'd be better off!

THis idea of loyal customers opinions being "unfounded" is both laughable and insulting. If a customer of mine is genuinely aggrieved I have a problem on my hands - My business (as theirs should be) is to ensure my customers are satisfied and likely to speak well of me to others - the size of the company is irrelevant - in order to thrive this should be top of any business' priority. 5k is a substantial amount to have paid to any company - and it is not mentioned here as naively as you assumed - yes it was for services rendered but it is mentioned due to the relevance of the issue and to highlight the fact that it effectively puts the existing customer in a weaker position than some one who may show no loyalty to any company or indeed have spent this money with a competitor. Keeping loyal customers happy will never be seen by any worthy business model as "foolish Business practice".

The 4 mobile operators in Ireland may very well not be foolish but consumers in this country certainly are - These practices are only implemented by these companies because they are tolerated. People can and should vote with their feet so to speak. I understand that perhaps a person on their 1st contract who have not seen the term through may not have room to feel aggrievance here- but people who have effectively been in contracts for 5 + years should be treated in a manner that reflects the loyalty they have shown.

superfish

seabre wrote: »

I am in business myself and I can assure you that if I were to offer a deal to one customer and not the other I would indeed be pulled on it and rightly so. It is precisely due to this attitude that customers of these major companies are treated so poorly. We in Ireland seem to have this meek attitude that we are in some way under a compliment to these companies for providing a service - that we pay them very well for. Truth is they should be constantly challenged to provide better more competitive services and standards for consumers if they are to thrive in the marketplace.

Any private trader knows how hard it is to build up and maintain a decent client base and clients that show loyalty should be rewarded not penalised. If Meteor in this situation were to be out of pocket in providing the desired service to their existing customers I would understand but they would be no worse off than they are making this offer to new customers. Infact they wouldnt be losing any customers so they'd be better off!

THis idea of loyal customers opinions being "unfounded" is both laughable and insulting. If a customer of mine is genuinely aggrieved I have a problem on my hands - My business (as theirs should be) is to ensure my customers are satisfied and likely to speak well of me to others - the size of the company is irrelevant - in order to thrive this should be top of any business' priority. 5k is a substantial amount to have paid to any company - and it is not mentioned here as naively as you assumed - yes it was for services rendered but it is mentioned due to the relevance of the issue and to highlight the fact that it effectively puts the existing customer in a weaker position than some one who may show no loyalty to any company or indeed have spent this money with a competitor. Keeping loyal customers happy will never be seen by any worthy business model as "foolish Business practice".

The 4 mobile operators in Ireland may very well not be foolish but consumers in this country certainly are - These practices are only implemented by these companies because they are tolerated. People can and should vote with their feet so to speak. I understand that perhaps a person on their 1st contract who have not seen the term through may not have room to feel aggrievance here- but people who have effectively been in contracts for 5 + years should be treated in a manner that reflects the loyalty they have shown.

I could not agree more excellent post seabre !

bd250110

seabre wrote: »

I am in business myself and I can assure you that if I were to offer a deal to one customer and not the other I would indeed be pulled on it and rightly so. It is precisely due to this attitude that customers of these major companies are treated so poorly. We in Ireland seem to have this meek attitude that we are in some way under a compliment to these companies for providing a service - that we pay them very well for. Truth is they should be constantly challenged to provide better more competitive services and standards for consumers if they are to thrive in the marketplace.

I don't understand why people are ignoring a key point both parties entered freely into a binging contract. It's not about loyalty, meek consumers, or anything else. Every time you select a product/service, it is equivalent to putting the service out to tender, Meteor guaranteed you a price and a service and you guaranteed to keep your business with them for that period. Why should they release you from that contract, other than you want to be released?

eyesofvenus

bd250110 wrote: »

both parties entered freely into a binging contract

I wish

KevArno

seabre wrote: »

I am in business myself and I can assure you that if I were to offer a deal to one customer and not the other I would indeed be pulled on it and rightly so. It is precisely due to this attitude that customers of these major companies are treated so poorly. We in Ireland seem to have this meek attitude that we are in some way under a compliment to these companies for providing a service - that we pay them very well for. Truth is they should be constantly challenged to provide better more competitive services and standards for consumers if they are to thrive in the marketplace.

Any private trader knows how hard it is to build up and maintain a decent client base and clients that show loyalty should be rewarded not penalised. If Meteor in this situation were to be out of pocket in providing the desired service to their existing customers I would understand but they would be no worse off than they are making this offer to new customers. Infact they wouldnt be losing any customers so they'd be better off!

THis idea of loyal customers opinions being "unfounded" is both laughable and insulting. If a customer of mine is genuinely aggrieved I have a problem on my hands - My business (as theirs should be) is to ensure my customers are satisfied and likely to speak well of me to others - the size of the company is irrelevant - in order to thrive this should be top of any business' priority. 5k is a substantial amount to have paid to any company - and it is not mentioned here as naively as you assumed - yes it was for services rendered but it is mentioned due to the relevance of the issue and to highlight the fact that it effectively puts the existing customer in a weaker position than some one who may show no loyalty to any company or indeed have spent this money with a competitor. Keeping loyal customers happy will never be seen by any worthy business model as "foolish Business practice".

The 4 mobile operators in Ireland may very well not be foolish but consumers in this country certainly are - These practices are only implemented by these companies because they are tolerated. People can and should vote with their feet so to speak. I understand that perhaps a person on their 1st contract who have not seen the term through may not have room to feel aggrievance here- but people who have effectively been in contracts for 5 + years should be treated in a manner that reflects the loyalty they have shown.

Once again someone in this thread jumps on a high horse without reading what I said... I am 100% totally for customers being informed, intelligent beings, of sound mind, making choices for their benifit. I am also 100% behind the idea of treating your customers right and stepping beyond the expected where necessary to improve your client base. But there is a limit to this. I know, having worked with most of the networks that they do indeed push the boundaries to help appease their customers, but when it does not make financial sense then it cannot be done. This is where my statement on foolish business practices came into it!

Let me say that again... loyalty has nothing to do with it!!! Businesses are there to make money, and THEY set the rules before you sign. But then YOU sign the contract accepting them rules. Im not for or against these companies practices, what I am against is people expecting their providers to bend to their every whim even tho it may leave the company in a weaker position.

You speak of an aggreived customer of yours...? Ok so lets say you have a deal with one of your customers, and half way through completing a transaction, or providing a service that the customer has already committed to, and that you have had substantial initial outlay to proceed with, this customer changes the rules of play and is suddenly "aggrieved"...Should you suffer financially because this customer cannot abide by their own word? If Meteor acted in this way all their customers get out of contracts, if the customer acts in this way they expect to be rewarded??! Absolute bullsh*t...

Like i said, i am very customer focussed in general, but some people just take the piss, and should not be rewarded for it.

(and I agree with you about people voting with their feet... Irish people are way too apathetic. But only after seeing out their existing obligations)

superfish

KevArno wrote: »

Once again someone in this thread jumps on a high horse without reading what I said... I am 100% totally for customers being informed, intelligent beings, of sound mind, making choices for their benifit. I am also 100% behind the idea of treating your customers right and stepping beyond the expected where necessary to improve your client base. But there is a limit to this. I know, having worked with most of the networks that they do indeed push the boundaries to help appease their customers, but when it does not make financial sense then it cannot be done. This is where my statement on foolish business practices came into it!

Let me say that again... loyalty has nothing to do with it!!! Businesses are there to make money, and THEY set the rules before you sign. But then YOU sign the contract accepting them rules. Im not for or against these companies practices, what I am against is people expecting their providers to bend to their every whim even tho it may leave the company in a weaker position.

You speak of an aggreived customer of yours...? Ok so lets say you have a deal with one of your customers, and half way through completing a transaction, or providing a service that the customer has already committed to, and that you have had substantial initial outlay to proceed with, this customer changes the rules of play and is suddenly "aggrieved"...Should you suffer financially because this customer cannot abide by their own word? If Meteor acted in this way all their customers get out of contracts, if the customer acts in this way they expect to be rewarded??! Absolute bullsh*t...

Like i said, i am very customer focussed in general, but some people just take the piss, and should not be rewarded for it.

(and I agree with you about people voting with their feet... Irish people are way too apathetic. But only after seeing out their existing obligations)

They are not losing out in the long run if the op decides 12 month into his 18 month contract he wants a new phone, he would have to pay for the upgrade and sign into a new contract a minimum of 12 or more month even if he gets the upgrade for free meteor are still making a profit thats how you hold on to your customers and keep them happy

KevArno

superfish wrote: »

They are not losing out in the long run if the op decides 12 month into his 18 month contract he wants a new phone, he would have to pay for the upgrade and sign into a new contract a minimum of 12 or more month even if he gets the upgrade for free meteor are still making a profit thats how you hold on to your customers and keep them happy

The phone costs Meteor money, probably a lot more than you would think. Even the Pay As You Go phones are subsidised. And the provision of service also costs a lot of money. You are making assumptions here, when in reality that isn't the issue.

The issue here is that people when signing their contracts are doing so with no intention of seeing out the full term, to the letter of the contract. Every time I sign a contract I would make the assumption that I will be using that phone and plan for the 12/18/24 months I signed up for (although why people actually sign 24 month contracts is beyond me). If I want a new phone in the interim I would expect to pay full price, or source it myself, or whatever.. I wouldn't expect Meteor to help me out. Now I have availed of early upgrades, because they were offered to me. I would never feel aggreaved that a company expected me to do what I committed to doing.

seabre

OK reality check - In the world of business and using my own position as an example - If I had agreed to provide my service to someone at an agreed price and subsequently offered another deal to a different customer - the reality is that if the 1st customer finds out and wants the same deal as the second I have to give in and offer the same deal - Why? Because if I dont 2 things will happen: The first customer will simply walk away leaving me with no payment whatsoever, and 2 they will have a terribly low opinion of me and will be sure to spread that to everyone they meet. Oh and genuine customers dont get "suddenly aggrieved" unless they are given cause to! I would point out that in 5 & 7 years they have never found themselves "suddenly aggrieved" before! Not typical of awkward or unreasonable people!

Now the difference here is the size of the company involved and the means by which they have available to them to recover the costs of the original contract.

Dont forget no one here is suggesting they walk out of a contract - They are merely seeking the opportunity to extend it for a further 2 years - and reap the benefit open to other customers for doing so.

I am far from on a high horse - perhaps your view from yours is clouding your judgement?