This could prove controversial ?

LegacyUser · 21-06-2001 12:32am #1

Having read some of the posts to the Forum, I was somewhat amazed, and upset, to note that some ENL users admitting to their internet connection being online allnight !!
Perhaps even the entire weekend ? So, noticing this I decided to make 'inside' enquires, inside being 'inside' Esat. Sure enough it was confirmed, by an impeccable source, that the situation of being 'connected' for the entire night, or for the entire day was very "prevalent"..
This situation surely needs highlighting ? Does it not mean that it is these 'overusers' that have actually brought about this current situation with Esat ?? Not overusers in the generally accepted meaning, but actually 'abusers' of the system ?? I myself (and I kept a log of connections) am guilty of perhaps two hours a day, even three or four hours at times,sometimes, but as for leaving it on 'connected' permanently - No Way..
Perhaps the Committe should be taking the line, "Remove the wholesale 'abusers'from ENL, (and these 'abusers' would undoubtedly be known to them), but leave ENL in operation for others at a higher rate of charge". If this were put into operation all future 'abusers' could be cut off immediately in order to protect the genuine users of the system ? It appears to me, that we as a group are tending to blame everybody else, but ourselves ?? Look at the criticism of Eircom that is prevalent on the forum, but is there any criticism to be seen (or in any quantity) of the actual 'abusers' of the system ?? Would it be fair to say, that were it not for those 'abusers' we would not be in the position we are in now ?? After all, I would imagine that the charges levied by Eircom on Esat now, are the same as when Esat introduced the service, so it therefore follows that the abuse of the system has caused the present situation. It is one thing to 'quote' the American system of uninterupted use, but surely that is a case of bandwidth availability, which we do not have here, and are unlikely ever to have due to lack of volume and low population ??
Contraversial ?? Time will tell !!!!

LegacyUser · 21-06-2001 12:56am

Originally posted by angryuser:
I was somewhat amazed, and upset, to note that some ENL users admitting to their internet connection being online allnight !!
Perhaps even the entire weekend

In my previous posting 'Explanation of 75 hr issue' I stated

I have to 'put my hand up' here. Up until the famous letter came out, I would typically connect at 6:00 p.m. weekdays and stay connected to bedtime and at weekend from 6:00 p.m. Friday to late Sunday night - as ACT described it, 'treating the service like an always on connection'.

I told this to ACT when I met him with Elana and pointed out that this was not due to any deliberate attempt to cost Esat money or tie up bandwidth, it was purely down to lack of understanding on my part, I didn't realise that Esat were being charged on a per second basis by Eircom .

At that meeting, we pleaded with Esat to postpone cancellations for 3 months to see what could be achieved in that time. One of the points I made very strongly was that now that users understood the problems, they would likely see a dramatic decrease in usage by me and many others like me.

Unfortunately, our plea fell on deaf ears

Martin Harran

[This message has been edited by o_donnel_abu (edited 21-06-2001).]

LegacyUser · 21-06-2001 1:03am

Thanks Martin.. Unfortunately it would appear to be 'too late' to 'make amends' ??
It seems like 'self discipline' should have perhaps prevailed in those 'heady' days ?? (:,

LegacyUser · 21-06-2001 1:12am

Originally posted by angryuser:
I was somewhat amazed, and upset, to note that some ENL users admitting to their internet connection being online allnight !!
Perhaps even the entire weekend ? Does it not mean that it is these 'overusers' that have actually brought about this current situation with Esat ??

I was actively encouraged by employees of esat to do exactly that with my connection, as "thats what its for darren"

Originally posted by angryuser:
but actually 'abusers' of the system ?? Perhaps the Committe should be taking the line, "Remove the wholesale 'abusers'from ENL

The system was a [off peak]flatrate, always on connection and anyone who used it to its potential is not an abuser.

Originally posted by angryuser:
It is one thing to 'quote' the American system of uninterupted use, but surely that is a case of bandwidth availability, which we do not have here, and are unlikely ever to have due to lack of volume and low population ??

As everyone on SNL used 56k then bandwidth would never be a problem, Esat purposely allowed the system to choke itself to force disconnections. increasing bandwidth for this class of connection is incredibly easy.
And as far as bandwidth etc goes, ireland rates high up there and will soon be the the most important link from europe to america with kickass fibre all the way to america.

LegacyUser · 21-06-2001 1:12am

Originally posted by angryuser:

It seems like 'self discipline' should have perhaps prevailed in those 'heady' days ?? (:,

I think my own experience is typical of many users. I have been using the net for 5 years, SNL almost since it started and I am very 'computer literate' but I never understood this whole flat rate/LLU stuff.

I think that SNL actually 'fudged' the situation, many of us settled for OffPeak flat rate access as an acceptable half-way house and structured our Internet usage around it.

Some people have suggested that Esat did what they did quite deliberately to bring the whole issue into the open. Personally I don't buy that entirely but it has certainly had that effect

Martin

LegacyUser · 21-06-2001 10:20am

Originally posted by angryuser:
Thanks Martin.. Unfortunately it would appear to be 'too late' to 'make amends' ??
It seems like 'self discipline' should have perhaps prevailed in those 'heady' days ?? (:,

The service was quoted as 'unlimited'. What is your definition of the word 'unlimited'. This is a distraction anyway, it's Eircons fault we are in this position, full stop.

LegacyUser · 21-06-2001 10:34am

Totally agreed with Hmmm. SNL's terms of service did not qualify the term "nolimits"... so, 48 hrs online over the weekends is acceptable usage.

dahamsta · 21-06-2001 10:40am

The service was quoted as 'unlimited'. What is your definition of the word 'unlimited'. This is a distraction anyway, it's Eircons fault we are in this position, full stop.

It is and it isn't. Eircom is the root of the problem, because of their continued obstruction of LLU; but Esat mismanaged the whole SNL thing, and I get the impression they pretty much put their hand up to that in their meeting with Martin and Elena.

As you say, Esat branded and marketed the product as unlimited. The literature, sites and CD's clearly said, and I'm quoting directly: "unlimited on-line time...". Now it's obvious to us now that the product was unsustainable in that manner, but that is not the users fault, it is Esat's fault.

If they were transparent and made the situation clear, there wouldn't be such indignation about the situation. If they had implemented cutoffs[1], it might have fixed the problem. If they had sent people a polite warning, they probably would have stopped. But they did none of those things[1], they just booted people.

That's not right, it's not fair, and it certainly doesn't make me feel sorry for them. Esat laid the blame on me for their inability to market a service truthfully; and manage that service competently. That's my fault? I don't think so.

And where are we now? Well, Esat talked once to IrelandOffline, we're still waiting for a promised second meeting, and the users are still without a flat rate service. When you cut through it all, Esat haven't fixed anything, they've just sent the marketing man in to fix what he broke in the first place.

Two words Esat, "User Loyalty". Look it up, it's obviously a concept you have difficulty with.

adam

[1] Please don't tell me they did cutoffs. They say they did but they didn't work. Fair enough, that proves one of two things to me: a) They're technically incompetent; or b) they're lying.

LegacyUser · 21-06-2001 2:43pm

Originally posted by Straker:
Totally agreed with Hmmm. SNL's terms of service did not qualify the term "nolimits"... so, 48 hrs online over the weekends is acceptable usage.

From a contractual point of view, consumers of esat nolimits did nothing wrong using the the service to its maximum. Why should the users care about the profitability of the service - thats between Esat and Eircom. Why should they care if other users are getting busy signals - it is up to Esat to provide sufficient modems and bandwidth to keep them happy.

Then again, from this same point of view, ESAT did nothing wrong in discontinuing the service for a selected group of users. Why should they give warning when it's not in the contract that they should.

From the ethical (for want of a beeter word) point of view, ESAT could have stated truthfully that they were unable to continue with the service for commercial reasons or they could have given some warning that continued "over-use" would result in termination. Did they have to send out that "spirit of the service" BS? They could also have briefed their customer representatives a lot better.

The users in turn could have disconnected, at least when not sitting at the computer. This would have allowed other users to dial-in without busy tones as well as lessening the loss for Esat. People were boasting about the length of time they could stay on nolimits on boards.ie and newsnet.

Sorry if this is a bit long-winded, but I think people occasionally talk at cross purposes on this issue.

I've been off nolimits for a long time now due to a change in number. Like the majority of net users, nolimits simply does not exist for me.

LegacyUser · 22-06-2001 7:04pm

Having read all the postings above, I would just like to add one further point, "before retiring"..!!! I spent many nights over the past year, unable to log onto Esat, read or send my mail, or do anything else. When I complained to Esat, they continuously referred me to the fact that too many 'users' were remaining online indefinitely, and ruining it for others, to the point where they could not access the internet at all !! They further explained that there was no problem from their end, with capacity, but they simply could not cope with the numbers remaining online for hour after hour without logging off. At the time I tended not to believe this, but I do now think they had a point..!! The 'mindless' logging on for limitless duration undoubtedly spoiled it for me and for many others, to the point that we are now where we are - 'kicked off' - I am not defending Esat in any way, they handled the whole matter abysmally and should have written to those who were blatantly staying online for the sake of it, and for no real valid reason, and warned them to 'stop', or else !! To say that NL means no limits and therefore is a licence to stay online all night, is wrong.. I have no doubt a lot of these people also experienced the inability to log on, and were also told by Esat of the reasons, but it did not seem to worry them that they were stretching the system 'beyond' its limits, but continued without regard to the consequences or the affect on others.. !! As I said before, 'nobody' in this small island of ours is going to introduce a system to enable users to abuse it and stay online forever without good reason..?? If they do, and lets hope they do, then they should enforce strict monitoring of those who stay online all night at the expense of others.. ?
Enough said.!! Good luck to all, especially the committee and all those who are working so hard to get us a good service..

p.s. I think we all have to admit we have learned a lesson, but had to learn the hard way..!! ??

[This message has been edited by angryuser (edited 22-06-2001).]

LegacyUser · 22-06-2001 8:41pm

I think you need to get a better understanding of the situation before you start sprouting sanctimonious tripe.

LegacyUser · 22-06-2001 9:15pm

Originally posted by angryuser:
To say that NL means no limits and therefore is a licence to stay online all night, is wrong.. I have no doubt a lot of these people also experienced the inability to log on, and were also told by Esat of the reasons, but it did not seem to worry them that they were stretching the system 'beyond' its limits, but continued without regard to the consequences or the affect on others..

I'm sorry angryuser but this really has got the hair on the back of my neck raised..i will try to be polite for the rest of this post.....
To spout this "To say that NL means no limits and therefore is a licence to stay online all night, is wrong.. " sanctimonious crap(i've already lost it)...what the hell is wrong with it???!!! Which word do you not understand ??no or limits??

", but continued without regard to the consequences or the affect on others.." what the hell is this supposed to mean??? I never got any messages via email or by post to say , this is hurting other , please restrict your usage to xyz hours per month. They offered a service, yes it was impossible to deliver in the end, BUT they still advertised it ,and continued to do so for some time, as a no limits service. I do NOT remember anyone in esat oficially saying, we cannot sustain this leval of service. I for one would have limited(note the word..l_i_m_i_t_ed) my usage if i someone in esat had the cop on to say, we cannot sustain your usage , please cut it down...i never got that..i got "the letter".

I would happly have payed for a tiered service, i 75 hours per month for £20 150hours for £40 etc etc..i never was offered it, i merely used it as it was marketed..ie no limits usage 6 till 8 monday thru thursday, and all weekend. I bought that service, noone told me i should do ANY different from ESAT, so please don't spout "without regard to the consequences or the affect on others", that was not my responsibility. If esat felt their bandwitdh was overloaded, why FFS didnt they say so. I do have regard for others, if asked to do something thats reasonable i will. I was never asked, i was cut off.

LegacyUser · 22-06-2001 9:51pm

ESAT should have been up front from the start. Not everyone is aware that lines are limited and that excessive use denies others of the oportunity to connect. Esat should have explained that their service depends on people taking some responsibility. This could have been stated in large print at the beginning of the contract. And, like the previous poster says, they could have warned users when they were pushing it.

My hope is that, if IrelandOffline is successfull, we will have a range of unmetered products to choose from. I don't expect that any of these will allow 'unlimited' use. ISPs will always turf out users who cause grief to others. However, no ISP will enter the Irish market until a "FRIACO" deal is worked out between the ODTR and Eircom (or Eircom are mandated. All IMHO.

[This message has been edited by Skeptic1 (edited 22-06-2001).]

LegacyUser · 22-06-2001 10:06pm

If theres 1 thing that unites us all in using SNL, it is the pink screen we see when we all begin surfing! Why did Esat not put any service messages here, rather than sending out negative vibes or coded messages through it's customer service reps when someone complained about the service. This oversight is indicative of this whole mess.

I have no bones about admitting I used the service to the full, BUT if Esat had been straight w/ me re: overuse, I would have cutback in the same manner I have to now!

Users were only using what they had contracted for. The analogies are endless but really they can be summed up in saying if you're paying for something your going to use it to the fullest. Any rational consumer adopts such an attitude and it is pointless blaming your peers in this fiasco.

80p. (aka "a rational consumer")

80project.com

LegacyUser · 22-06-2001 10:15pm

Originally posted by Skeptic1:
ESAT should have been up front from the start. Not everyone is aware that lines are limited and that excessive use denies others of the oportunity to connect. Esat should have explained that their service depends on people taking some responsibility. This could have been stated in large print at the beginning of the contract. And, like the previous poster says, they could have warned users when they were pushing it.

Indeed Skeptic1, thats all good, i would beg to difer on the "responsibility " side of things. I do know that more users online means more bandwidth taken up, but i believe the onus is on the provider not the user, who is using the service as they were believing it was sold to them. I don't think, frankly that its up to me as a user though to be "responsible", i was; according to the terms of the service.

Maybe large print would have been a good idea for the unaware, small print would have sufficied for me.
I'm still a pretty miffed with the angryuser's posts so perhaps i'm being overly sensitive here, no disrespect at all Skepic1.

LegacyUser · 22-06-2001 11:55pm

Well, there are several words ESAT could use other than "responsibility". It's only a minor (and largely academic) point I was making there. I'm deliberately looking at it from the point of view of the ISP (not esat specifically) because I'm interested in seeing how the overall system can be changed so that several ISPs will come forward and offer competing services.

I think un-metered dial-up will always involve booting off (rational) users in some form (even with a FRIACO style deal worked out).

Warning users has it's own dificulties. How can they warn users without telling them what the 'maximum' is? It would only be natural for the users to phone up and demand to know what this limit is. Indeed, it would be fairly easy to work it out. If users are told there is a maximum, then it effectively becomes a pre-paid service and the limit is likely to be quite low because people would make a point of using it to the maximum allowed. Flat-rate ISPs in Britain keep users in a perpetual state of paranoia for this reason.

Although I don't think "FRIACO", if it is ever introduced, will lead to genuinely "unlimited" (although it may well be marketed as such) dial-up Internet access, it will at least give heavier users more options.

People who want unlimited always-on Internet access will have to pay more and go for ADSL and Cable internet. Here, simply being connected has no impact on other users and heavy downloading merely degrades the service for others but does not prevent them from collecting mail etc.

Sorry if all this is profoundly irritating to those who have just been kicked off nolimits and whow have now joined the majority of net users. The real shame is that there is nowhere else to go.

BTW, good luck to those who are planning to take ESAT to court.

[This message has been edited by Skeptic1 (edited 23-06-2001).]

LegacyUser · 23-06-2001 1:25am

Originally posted by angryuser:
...The 'mindless' logging on for limitless duration undoubtedly spoiled it for me and for many others

I paid £20 a month for internet access from 6pm to 8am weekdays and 6pm Friday to 8am Monday morning.

I'm not going to apologise to you or anyone else for using the net during that time.

I had a perfectly valid reason for being logged in most nights for 4-5 hours - I was able to connect to a computer at the local university where I am doing postgraduate research part-time. I couldn't use the computer at the Uni during the day because I work full time.

Having gotten the letter from ESAT, I calculated roughly that I used 55% of the service I was paying for. Yet, despite this, I am classified as am "over user"!!!!!

Once again, I have no intention of apologising to you or anyone else for using a system that I was paying for. If you couldn't log on, or send mail, etc, then don't complain about users being logged on for hours. Instead, you should be complaining to ESAT because their system couldn't handle that type of prolonged access!

Mike

LegacyUser · 23-06-2001 1:51am

i used esat's service to the maximum.
i was a damn zombie for the last couple of years.
i milked esat for all they could offer and im not pi$$ed either that i will get the boot, i was costing them cash and i had to go.

Britany Spears Looking incredible

LegacyUser · 23-06-2001 1:54am

Originally posted by chernobyl:
i used esat's service to the maximum.
i was a damn zombie for the last couple of years.
i milked esat for all they could offer and im not pi$$ed either that i will get the boot, i was costing them cash and i had to go.

I'm ****ed off that I didn't use it to the max while I was on

LegacyUser · 23-06-2001 2:02am

Originally posted by Delphi91:

Having gotten the letter from ESAT, I calculated roughly that I used 55% of the service I was paying for. Yet, despite this, I am classified as am "over user"!!!!!

If I were you I would take my custom elsewhere and have nothing further to do with ESAT.

dahamsta · 23-06-2001 2:35am

I overused SNL. There, I've said it. I stayed connected for hours, even days at a time. It was wrong, I knew it was wrong then, and I know it was wrong now. I knew I was locking up modems, I knew I was degrading bandwidth, and worse, I knew that SNL was unsustainable by Esat, which makes me all the more evil. I reckon theres a fair few people here who did the same thing, but that doesn't make it right or fair. And we made it worse for each other by doing that - we came in early and stayed in late. It was a Catch 22, a Möbius Strip, a never-ending loop.

So there you have it, a confession by one of the protaganists. But let's get a couple of things straight here right here and now:

First of all, most of the time I stayed connected because I had to - if you didn't get in by seven o'clock and you didn't stay on until eleven or twelve, there was no point in even trying. That's a modem pool problem right there. The user to modem ratio was way off what it should have been. Where does the blame lie? Esat.
Secondly, yes, ok, I'll stand up and admit that I was discourteous in my actions, but Esat's actions were pretty discourteous too. Even aside from the fact that I believe the number of users like me was much smaller that "The Esat 2000", did they really have to respond with vengeance? And lump everyone in the same boat?
Couldn't they have given people fair warning? Couldn't they have introduced cutoffs that worked? Couldn't they have introduced a tiered service? Most importantly, couldn't they have told the truth in the letter, instead of manipulating the situation and using us as a way to get their cause in the press? Where does the blame lie? Esat.
And last but not least, here's the killer, the one fact that knocks it all on the head, as mentioned by several people in this thread, and what must be dozens of other threads at this stage. Here it is, brace yourself -- ESAT SOLD ME A SERVICE THAT WAS MARKETED AND ADVERTISED AS UNLIMITED. That's the bottom of the line. The abuse of the system was a symptom. Esat was the cause. Where's does the blame lie? Esat.

Of course, LLU is the real cause of it all, but that doesn't change the fact that the blame in this particular case lies with Esat: for lying and manipulating; for being technically inept; for treating their customers with disrespect. Don't ask me to feel sorry for them. Don't ever ask me to feel sorry for them.

adam

[This message has been edited by dahamsta (edited 23-06-2001).]

dahamsta · 23-06-2001 2:45am

On a lighter note, I'd like to note that Britney Spears does look incredible in that photo. I reckon I click on chernobyl's sig for about a tenth of his posts...

But anyway, back to the catfight...

adam

LegacyUser · 23-06-2001 1:10pm

I usually connected between 6 and 7 PM, and stayed online for a few hours. I never left it running overnight if I wasn't going to use it. So while I sometimes had an overnight download running, I would never leave it running for no reason.

Just a little note: if you leave the connection to your ISP running without using it, you aren't actually wasting any bandwidth. The only thing you're doing is locking up a modem. And in the case of Esat, that costs them a lot, thanks to Eircon.

LegacyUser · 23-06-2001 1:25pm

Just to put "locking up a modem" into perspective: analog modems are dirt cheap right now. And even cheaper if you buy them in bulk. This means that even if you were using an unmetered Internet service 24/7, the ISP should be able to recoup the cost in the first month or so.

The reason Esat killed people using the Internet for more than 2.5 hours a day was NOT because of modems, it was because of the high per-second charges they have to pay Eircon.

In other words, blaming it on people locking up modems is frivolous.

LegacyUser · 23-06-2001 1:35pm

while it is true that eircon's dog in
the manger attitude to selling bulk time
to esat is the soil in which our problem
has grown, the root and branch of it is the
blatantly false advertising by esat of their
nolimits service and the shear incompitants
of their handling of the heavy users.
At no time was any indication that they wanted
people to ease up on their use,no line of
text on the pink page,no email,not so much as a smoke signal, we not mind readers!
so mr angryuser since you could'nt get on
to nolimits because of those nasty people
i presume you did'nt get a letter, well now
you have it to yourself until they pull
the plug on you for overusing.

wormhole

LegacyUser · 23-06-2001 3:55pm

Oh, yes I did get a letter..!! and expect to be 'booted' off anytime now..!! I was 'apparantly' just over the limit, so I have to suffer like everybody else, but I don't think anyone would be suffering now, if there had been some 'sensible' useage of the system, as pointed out earlier. Nobody, but nobody can justify going to bed and leaving their connection on..!!! That is a typical "cut off your nose, to spite your face" attitude.. !! Its also totally pointless, except that it influences others in their ability to log on and enrages their ISP..!!! As I said before, enough is enough, and the 'controversial'point has been made, and I have a feeling 'out there' that there could be a lot of users, and EX users who agree with my view. Perhaps someone could 'pull' the plug on this topic now..??

LegacyUser · 23-06-2001 4:10pm

angryuser, do you think it's wrong to leave your connection running throughout the night if you're using it to download a file? Surely it's only wrong to leave the connection running if you aren't actually using it!

[This message has been edited by Urban Weigl (edited 23-06-2001).]

LegacyUser · 23-06-2001 9:19pm

Urban Weigl,It must have been some colossal file to take all night to download ?? But that is not the point really. To occassionally download a large file is ok, you have a specific reason. But I am prepared to bet you did not do this 'everynight' ?? or on an ongoing regular basis. ? It is the 'mindless' connectivity where I think we have all gone wrong ??

LegacyUser · 23-06-2001 10:11pm

Hi my name is Martin Hayes and I was the guy on tv3 about esat,I am not letting go of them easily and I am going to try and take them to court,I am also hassling the director of consumer affairs himself not just his office,I need everyone that wants to, to help me put a case together against esat email me and we can talk more martinhayes1@ireland.com. Also here is something interesting everyone should read,go to the bottom of the page and click on european communities(unfair terms in consumer contracts) regulations 1995 the link is http://www.ucc.ie/ucc/depts/law/irishlaw/subjects/contract.html scroll to the end of the page and click on the link that says european communities (unfair terms in consumer contracts) regulations 1995 ............PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE REGULATIONS COVER ONE SIDED TERMS OF CONTRACT LIKE ESATS ONE,SO AS SUCH THE ODTRS RESPONSE IS BULLS**T,IT WOULD SEEM THE ODTR NEEDS TO READ UP ON LEGLISLATION AND ENFORCE THE LAW(ARTICLE 40 OF OUR CONSTITUTION (1),(3)PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 3 GUARRANTEES THAT ALL OF US ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW AND THAT THE STATE WILL BOTH VINDICATE THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS AND PROTECT CITIZENS RIGHTS. SO COME ON EVERYBODY PUT PRESSURE ON THE DIRECTOR OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND THE ODTR,I MYSELF AM GOING TO DUBLIN ALL OF THIS WEEK TO PRESENT THESE ARGUMENTS IN PERSON!!!
PLEASE LET EVERYONE YOU KNOW WHO HAS BEEN CUT OFF KNOW ABOUT ME......IF I CAN SOMEHOW GET THEM INTO COURT AND WIN THEN WE ALL WIN!!! SO PLEASE HELP IF YOU CAN. thanks Martin Hayes

LegacyUser · 24-06-2001 12:23am

I would recommend that all those online read the information contained in the link Martin has given.. Especially appropriate are sections 5(2), 6, 8, and No.10 is very relevant. It makes for very enlightening reading.!!

This could prove controversial ?

Comments