Review by Cybervictim - Location: Washington, District Of Columbia, DC, USA
- Cost: $17 per month
Connection usually goes through without a problem. Lots of spam invades mailbox; Billing Dept. is INSANE If this is how they run a business, they're heading for chap. 11
| |
Update to information below: Today (April 15, 2002), I received another invoice from Crosslink. This invoice adds another $100 to my April 4 bill, presumably in response to my e-mails requesting that they resend their invoice with itemized charges. "Mack Stone," who is an alias for the President, Ed Pechan, of Pechan and Associates (an environmental consulting firm that lives off of government contracts) must have been short of cash last week. I've filed complaints with the BBB, FTC, Va. Attorney Gen., and DC Dept of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. As time permits, I am also sending my story to various television and radio outlets. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I had Crosslink service starting in late 1995. Every month, they billed directly to my credit card and every month they were paid $17.55 (an introductory rate). Apart from the increasing amount of spam that invaded my e-mail account (or rather my wife's account--I actually never used Crosslink except to surf the web), I was relatively happy. On Feb. 22, 2002 I sent an e-mail to Crosslink to terminate my account (I signed up with Verizon DSL, which had begun on Feb. 5). Crosslink informed that 1). I would be responsible for March '02 charges because my request was not 6 instead of the required 7 days in advance of the end of the month; 2). I had an outstanding bill because they were not able to bill my credit card for 3 months. Further, they inform me that normally they would charge me $35 for the "bounced" credit card; however, they are willing to waive that charge (but not the charge for March) as "consideration" for my being a good customer since 1995. In my response, I noted that the only notification Crosslink had sent to me about past due payments had been a single e-mail communication (on Dec. 29), which I had not seen (I never opened Crosslink statements as they were invariably just a notification that my credit card was about to be billed; further, months would sometimes go by before I would open e-mail at home--it was not an account I used for personal correspondence). In any event, I send them a check for $52.65 to cover the 3 months when the credit card could not be billed. In the course of writing back and forth about the disputed bill, I discovered that Crosslink's own web site (but not their user agreement) stated that one only had to notify them by noon of the 23rd to make an in-time request for termination at the end of a month. I send them this information and the response of the Billing Supervisor and the head of the company, Ed Pechan, is that what I saw on the web site is a typo and I am still responsible for March. Mr. Pechan further states that I should pay if for no other reason than I was still using the account. I reply that yes, I log on to the account to check for his e-mail and the only use of the site has been to send Crosslink e-mail disputing my bill and asking them to cease service. The story gets even stranger now. Crosslink decides that my e-mail communications, which are in response to their e-mail and in any event are always related to the billing dispute, constitute "harassment" and that future messages from me will result in my being billed $25. I receive what can only be characterized as an obnoxious note from the Billing Supervisor, Mr. Mack Stone; and when I reply, he informs me that per instructions from the head of the company, Ed Pechan, I will be billed $25. I reply that that what he is doing is not legal. He charges another $25. I tell him that I will take this up with the Better Business Bureau and pursue other remedies if he persists--another $25 is charged to my account. I figure this is all a joke until I receive an invoice in the mail for $127.65 along with notice of intent to go to a collection agency if I don't pay in full. The invoice states that if you have a problem, write to the Billing Supervisor, Mack Stone. I do that. I e-mail Mack Stone asking how he arrives at the $127.65. He sends an e-mail instead telling me that it includes $75 in harassment charges, $35 in bounce credit card fees and $17.55 for the disputed month of March. Further, he tells me that if I don't pay they will go to a collection agency and notify credit reporting agencies. He also tells me that I am "sad and pathetic" person. I write back that I want Billing to send me by U.S. mail, not e-mail, an itemized bill. I receive another obnoxious note from Mr. Stone informing me that I have just incurred another $25 fee. I write back again that I am entitled to an itemized bill in writing. Lord knows if I will be charged another $25 for this note. That's my saga until now. I am pursuing my complaint with the appropriate legal bodies (BBB, FTC); however, it seems that just getting an itemized bill from these guys might cost me my credit rating. If so, perhaps someone out there wants to contact me about legal remedies I can pursue. Thanks. member for 22 years, 21 visits, last login: 17.9 years ago lodged 22 years ago
|
billeven they forward you to the collection agency you still have the right to appeal it when you appeal they can't hurt you credit history. after the appeal they they to tell you if you are liable for the charge or not. if they find you liable then they can hurt you credit history.
file a report with the FCC and BBB | |
| | |
Re: billThanks, I didn't realize that I had appeal steps following report to collection agency. Meanwhile, I am still being charged "harassment" fees by Crosslink as I try to pursue my dispute--talk about corporate abuse. I'll be looking for a lawyer soon to "sue the bastards." | |
|
|
Wow...Crosslink = Insane Supercillious People ???Cybervictim, it sounds like you're having a bad hair day.
I've never heard of any business using bogus charges in order to ravage the credit record of a (former) customer. If I were Crosslink, I'd be very circumspect about making those kind of threats when their personal animus against your is made plain (referring to you as "sad and pathetic"). I recommend that you save and print out all communications with Crosslink....From a legal perspective, they are treading on a mine field; the FCRA permits consumers to sue businesses providing false information to credit reporting agencies when the false information was provided with malice or willful intent to injure the consumer. [p.s. the foregoing was not legal advice, please consult with a licensed legal professional in your jurisdiction]
For the record, I have often had my credit card company change my credit card number; and have never had any of my recurring billers even threaten me with a "bounced" card fee. Sounds illegal to me, unless they've gotten it into the service contract. Good luck, Cybervictim -- it sounds like this is going to be a protracted engagement | |
| | |
Re: Wow...Crosslink = Insane Supercillious People ???Thanks for your comments. I hope you requested that your posting be forwarded to Crosslink. Do you know if a successful suit will also let you recover court costs? | |
| | |
to ombudsman1
".....The story gets even stranger now. Crosslink decides that my e-mail communications, which are in response to their e-mail and in any event are always related to the billing dispute, constitute "harassment...."
Get a lawyer and sue if you believe you are correct. Document everything. They probably have a lawyer and if I'm not mistaken, they may also have some very "cooperative" law enforcement officials as customers. | |
|
|
namehereplease
Anon
2002-Oct-29 12:18 pm
Wow ! So, I'm not the only one ?I thought I was the only one with bad experiences with this company. My problem was getting the runaround from their techsupport and some supervisor. after a few months of frustration with crosslinks (pechan environmental?) i just gave up and went with RCN. no problems since ! | |
|
| |
Review by itwonder - Location: Warrenton, Fauquier, VA, USA
- Cost: $55 per month (month by month)
- Install: about 1 days
Advertises best performance and service in the area, no setup fee High cost, did not perform as well as Earthlink on DSLR Speed test, rude billing support I terminated the account and I will never use them again
| Pre Sales information: Install Co-ordination: Connection reliability: Value for money:
|
For 2B IDSN, Crosslink charges $59.95/mo for 480 hrs. B channel time, much higher than Earthlinks $35/mo unlimited. Setup was NC, a good point. The promised superior performance would have been worth it to me but it was not evident in my experience. Hop count to west coast site I use was higher than Earthlink. Performance on a VPN to the west coast was terribly slow. My DSL Reports speed test and toast.net speed tests results were lower than Earthlink, particularly upload. I was astonished to receive a rude and unprofessional response from billing department representative upon cancellation. I still hope to discuss that matter with his boss. To their credit, I was not charged for the account. member for 23.2 years, 75 visits, last login: 14 years ago lodged 23.2 years ago
|
The rude billing department doesn't surprise meSo, was the person from billing who contacted you named Mack? He was the guy that I had to deal with when they had billing problems (don't bill me for 4 months, then expect $800 all at once? And then yell at me when I try and arrange a payment plan?)
Apparently, however, Crosslink doesn't care enough about their customers to fire, or even discipline, this guy. I actually went down there and spoke to one of their directors, and he didn't have anything useful today. I cancelled my connection back in January (at the end of my one year contract), and they're still trying to charge me $600 for Feb-Apr
-Todd | |
| | System |
ISDN in Warrenton / Obligation to Pay BillsISDN Access in Warrenton The ISDN user in Warrenton was able to reach the site they use the most on the West Coast faster using Earthlink because the site was also on the Earthlink network. According to trace routes there were fewer hops to that site using the Earthlink network. While the access speed to neutral third party sites was about the same or in some cases faster, Earthlink was able to route traffic to the site the customer uses the most on it's network on the West Coast faster. The CrossLink support department was not able to resolve a problem, because the ISDN connection operated as it should and it was the time to get cross country to the site on the Earthlink network which was the difference. Having determined this to be the difference, CrossLink Sales recommended the subscriber work with Earthlink and that no there be no charge.
Prompt Payment for Services Rendered CrossLink incurrs operating expenses which are paid every month, even when a DSL customer does NOT pay their bill in a timely manner. CrossLink's vendors are paid when an invoice is rendered. CrossLink expects the same prompt payment from their DSL subscribers, who are fully aware of their obligation to pay for the service prior to ordering. While not very popular, Mr. Stone's department is responsible for collecting from those few customers that do not live up to their obligations. | |
|
|
anonymoususerfour
Anon
2001-Aug-3 10:51 am
give it up....Hey guys, give it up. There is no "Mr Stone". He is a fictional character. To verify this, simply have an attorney call and insist he speak to such person, "Mr. (Mack) Stone". Such a request can not be satisfied. Bottom line.
Issue now closed. | |
| |
NoLawyer
Anon
2001-Aug-27 8:12 pm
The Future of ISP FailuresNot only did they waste my time with trying to qualify my line with Verizon but they actually tried to bill me for DSL that was never activated ...for 6 months!
They have essentially turned their billing department into a collection agency. Mr. Stone is their alias for the billing department staff. Why would an ISP need an alias for their staff? ...A LOT OF ANGRY CUSTOMERS. | |
|
| |
Review by (hidden by request) - Location: Gaithersburg, Montgomery, MD, USA
- Business customer
- Cost: $99 per month (12 month contract)
- Covad
- CLEC party: Covad
Just Bad Stay Away.
| Pre Sales information: Install Co-ordination: Connection reliability: Tech Support: Services: Value for money:
|
I have dealt with several DSL providers in the MD, DC, VA area and I have to say that this one is by far the worst. The tech staff did not return phone calls during the numerous outages and when I finally got them afterward, they blamed all the problems on COVAD. I have since moved to UUNet which also uses COVAD and have not had any downtime. I would recommend UUNet or Capunet before considering Crosslink.Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at » explorer.msn.com (review was emailed from domain cninetworks.com) lodged 23.2 years ago
|
I wouldn't use UUNet's e-mailAfter all, UUNet is the number 1 distributor of spam in the world. That fact backfired on them some time ago; remember when their mail server died because of all the spam backlogs? | |
| System |
DSL - The reality and a clean loopDSL requires a clean copper loop to work. A small percentage of DSL loops do not work correctly when installed. In the past Covad and other DSL CLEC's created trouble tickets with Verizon to clean up these loops. In some cases the loop could be cleaned up, while in others the ultimate replacement of the loop was required to solve the problem. The decision to attempt repair or to replace the loop rests with the DSL CLEC and the ILEC.
We are pleased that the new loop that was installed to provide DSL service through UUNet was a clean loop and that the user is now functioning as they should.
Almost all of our approximately five hundred DSL circuits have been clean when installed and have provided the performance expected. Based on actually experience with a few bad loops, we now know that replacing a bad loop is usually the fastest way to correct a bad loop problem.
The Covad trouble tickets for this loop indicates a number of attempts by Verizon to clean up the loop. The time required for these attempts was frustrating to the customer, who wanted answers, and the tech staff that had no new information to provide until Verizon actually worked on the loop. The good news for the DSL industry is that most DSL loops are clean and function well from the beginning. | |
| | |
asteaksouce
Anon
2001-Jun-8 3:31 pm
Re: DSL - The reality and a clean loopI would have to question why there are no positive comments regarding croslink dsl service as the other isps all have a mix of good and bad.
who is this mr stone? no - really, Who is he? No fibbing now.....and no matter what the reason, it's probably not good enough when complaints are lodged. I sure would not want to deal with him. | |
| | | |
MEATWORK
Anon
2001-Jun-14 1:09 pm
Re: DSL - The reality and a clean loopTHANKS ASTEAK - I USALLY LOOK AT THE BBB PAGE ON THE NET BEFORE BUYING ANYTHING BLIND. HERE IS A HYPERLINK TO THIER PAGE ON CROSSLINK;; IT LOOKS LIKE THE PROBLEMS REPORTED HERE ON DSLREPORTS ARE'NT UNIQUE ! » www.dc.bbb.org/report.ht ··· pid=6335 | |
|
|
hyterpttogo
Anon
2001-Sep-17 11:29 am
where did my previous post go????Anyway, as my previos post linking to the Better Business Bureau somehow disappeared (thats a serious "no-no" guys), here's the link again. It's always adviseable to check with the BBB whenever possible. The only thing that has changed with the BBB report since the previous post is that Crosslinks is now carrying an "unsatisfactory" rating by the BBB: » www.dc.bbb.org/report.ht ··· tional=YThere is nothing wrong with posting information to better inform the prospective customer. To that end, it is very risky deleting non-subjective posts. | |
| |
abcdefgh
Anon
2001-Dec-26 10:58 am
Better Business BureauOne should always check the Better Business Bureau's (BBB) Website prior to making any decisions about unfamiliar companies. In the case of this particular ISP, the BBB has a file: » www.dc.bbb.org/report.ht ··· tional=Y | |
|
| |
|