how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2000-09-14 23:24:32: The following letter went out to all Washington state ISPs last week, directly as a result of consumer complaints that had bubbled up to the Attorney Generals Department: "...In some cases, however, consumers are not being adequately informed. ..
|
 | | Re: DSL ISPs get a warning -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I suggest that the Washington State Attorney General first learn what
xDSL is. What steps are needed to be taken by a combination of
different companies to create a up and running xDSL line. Then read
the EULA/TOS of the companies they are receiving complaints about and
actually see in writing what is and is not guaranteed
by these companies. Then actually take the time to see if charges
were suspended for unsatisfied customers. And finally, read
dslreports religiously. Then, maybe, they might
qualify as a ruling body handling complaints on the subject.
Maybe.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
Comment: security IS underestimated
iQA/AwUBOcGdGOF/R7Bg1/L0EQLiiACg7IlhC+x1rpWck7d0jahNP+Qb88EAmQFd
bKCUPrDvdiEIwWqXx3v/7qQJ
=kRbF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
ronnieg56 * *
Speakeasy works 4 me! | |
| |  jayfal
join:2000-09-12
West Haven, CT | Re: DSL ISPs get a warning ronnie, you bring up important points about what the Washington State Attorney General 'should' know before they can qualify themselves as a ruling body on the state of DSL, but I believe they made themselves clear on that point.
"Should we see a pattern or practice of such activities emerging in the delivery of DSL service, we may take action in the future."
It is obvious that ISP responses to consumer complaints have not been adequately addressed and someone with some kind of influence/jurisdiction needs to step in and make it known to the ISP that customers are upset.
My interpretation of this letter tells me that the "WSAG" is well informed of the issues being experienced by those DSL customers who have been having problems and are dedicated enough to voice them. I'm sure or I hope that if negative reports persist, the WSAG will begin investigating the technology, its method of delivery, and the numerous factors involved in maintaining a quality product so that they can make a move to insure that WA DSL customers are getting what they pay for.
I say "Good for you WA." You are lucky you have an Attorney General willing to go to bat for you. I also think this action will also give some of us in other states hope that there really is someone else we can turn to when our ISPs shrug off our complaints and hide behind weak clauses in their service contracts. | |
| | | | |  Re: DSL ISPs get a warning
Hash: SHA1
jayfal, I agree with you. I just hate to see government agencies
react to these complaints, valid they be, for the wrong reasons. A
governmental department such as this one, when confronted with a
large amount of complaints on one particular subject, feels obligated
to reply just to show that they are alive and kicking. If they are
just making a ripple upon the waters to keep the public happy, which
happens much to often when government/politics get involved with
these matters, this will turn out to be a waste of time. If they are
truly concerned and dole out punishment where it is deserved, I think
this is a great step forward and will send a message to the industry
to shape-up.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
Comment: security IS underestimated
iQA/AwUBOcIsTOF/R7Bg1/L0EQIapQCfbDSsO9uM571rvD+c5l9hMq/WVm4AoJta
x5KD25B1/KJtiLk0Ee//+oc5
=noUT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
ronnieg56 * *
Speakeasy works 4 me! | |
|
|  klambertSeti RocksExMod 2000-03
join:2000-07-20
Dallas, TX | DSL Providers Better Shape Up! The problem with many DSL providers is that their advertising (and sales personnel) are misleading at best and downright fraudulent at worst. While it is true that DSL contracts "clearly" state that the speeds offered are not guaranteed (usually in paragraph 27 on page 12 of the fine-print contract), they are deliberately misrepresenting what we will receive for our $39.95 (or so). Needless to say, they rarely deliver what they have promised. I have yet to hear a single instance of a DSL subscriber who was: (1) set up in a timely manner (giving some reasonable lee-way), (2) received a connection speed set up at the speed contracted or agreed upon (common downgrades), (3) did not have regular service outages, and had decent customer service in response to complaints.
WHile I generally do not advocate government intervention (the "Laurel & Hardy Show"), if the DSL providers (including the phone cos & ISPs) don't get their act together soon there will be governmental intervention -- which will probably make no one happy.
Its about full disclosure and delivering what you promise without hiding caveats and limitations in the fine print -- trust me, I read have to deal with those types of contracts every day in my law practice. | |
| | | | Anon |  Re: DSL Providers Better Shape Up!
I have recommended them to all my friends who want to get DSL, 4 of them have signed up and out of the 5 of us only 1 has had issues, his phone line was hosed, couldn't keep sync for more then a few hours a day. But all seems to well for him now.
Great service, Great reliability, and STATIC IPs to boot. Linkline is my recommendation.
note: PPPoE Sucks, anyone who would choose to use an ISP with a PPPoE DSL implimentation is an idiot. | |
|
| | | Re: DSL ISPs get a warning Hey dumbass people are getting screwed as each day goes on. And i reallly think she knows what dsl is she can read and she prob is a million times smarter then you thats why she is attorney general. They need to take action and some of these companies presidents sued and arrested. | |
|
 rhavasy
join:2000-08-10
North Grafton, MA
 ·Charter VOIP
 ·Charter
| God Bless Christine O. Gregoire!
Hopefully, the actions of one state Attorney General will trickle to other states. It's clear that the Federal position of the FCC / FTC is hands-off on DSL. But those people are appointed not elected. It follows that the only real action will have to come from the local/state level where people actually have to run for office: either the PUCs or, as in this case, the Attorney General. Thankfully someone is helping to protect the rights of consumers.
--
"Oh God! What could I do? I foamed--I raved--I swore!...Was it possible they heard it not? Almighty God!--no, no! They heard!--they suspected!--they knew!--they were making a mockery of my horror!" -- Edgar Allan Poe, The Telltale Heart | |
|  Prairie DogHere's Looking At You KidPremium
join:2000-08-09
Langhorne, PA | Well you knew it was a matter of time before a goverment agency got involved, and rightfully so. This reminds me of what AOL use to get away with until the State of New York and their attorney general filed a lawsuit against AOL. That straightened AOL out in a area. Wont be long before the likes of Phoenix, Verizon and the rest of the group are hauled into court and sued. Seems to be the only way to correct the joke that they call DSL! | |
| | | | | | Anon | Verizon makes good in Washington State!
I've been with GTE (Verizon) for two months now as since then have had my 768/128 service drop in price from $49 to $39 and also just received a letter saying they were sorry for the delays installing my aDSL service a provided me a $45 credit plus the letter claims they are sending me a $50 check within 10 days!
Verizon Rules!!! | |
| | | | | | | | | | I too live in the Verizon/GTE part of WA...I agree, GTE rocks here. They promised to take out a load coil in 2 weeks....they did it in 1. They have also been very prompt for everything. Because of this, I still call them GTE, not Verizon, because this gives Verizon a GOOD name  | |
|
| | | i think that AOL and all the other companies that make u pay for 56k be destroyed b/c the people who use them are idiots i think!
--
-gl8712 | |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | Bravo! The letter itself may not do a lot of good, but at least it's some kind of sign that the consumer voice is being heard and that the respective companies need to listen. It's certainly a step in the right direction. | |
| | | I find it funny that some people think this letter will do anything. The Attorney General of Washington State can write anything up but it won't make any difference. The Baby Bells have and will always have the attitude that customers don't matter. Sure, they may guarantee a dial tone. But that's all they guarantee. In the Mid Atlantic region of Verizon, they push DSL along with second phone lines, Caller ID, National 411, etc., with the underlying rule that none of these services are guaranteed to work because they are value added services. I firmly believe that the only way for phone companies to start giving good customer service is to have competition with cable and other services that provide regular phone service, high speed access and even closed circuit "cable TV" like service. My parents even were still charged for a rental ATT home phone that they tried for many months to give back (remember when phones HAD to be rented from the phone company?) I'll wait to see actual teeth marks on the DSL providers from the Attorney Generals of this country before I think anything will happen. | |
| |  justinAustralian
join:1999-05-28
New York, NY
kudos:7
IPv6
Business Connectiv..
Console/Handheld g..
Console Tech
Home/Office setup ..
| Re: DSL ISPs get a warning | |
| | | | | Re: DSL ISPs get a warning And these smaller ISP's are any different then Verizon, SBC, PacBell or any of the baby bells that sell DSL? They should look at that letter as the same type of warning. SWe can only hope that the Telcos that lurk here read and take this to heart. | |
| | | BDC7
join:2000-07-27
Hoboken, NJ | This letter is right on point. ISP's that promise rapid delivery of service, fast speeds, prompt customer service but provide slow installation, poor speed with packet loss, and long times on hold.
Perhaps DSL Reports could send a copy to all the ISPs on its mailing list. And perhaps copies could be forwarded to the AGs in other states.
This could be the start of a good thing for those of us in DSL limbo for month after month after month... | |
|
| rhavasy
join:2000-08-10
North Grafton, MA Reviews:
·Charter VOIP
·Charter
| I don't know. Remember that because the Bells are involved in more than Broadband, they need to keep decent relations with all regulating bodies. Maybe you're right about the corporate attitude about the "value added services" but, at some point in the future, Verizon will be looking for expanded abilities to offer long-distance services or other "core" telco services, and I'm sure they won't want all of this consumer discord held over their heads by PUCs and Attornies General.
--
"Oh God! What could I do? I foamed--I raved--I swore!...Was it possible they heard it not? Almighty God!--no, no! They heard!--they suspected!--they knew!--they were making a mockery of my horror!" -- Edgar Allan Poe, The Telltale Heart
[text was edited by author 2000-09-15 13:28:06] | |
| | | | | Re: DSL ISPs get a warning Thought about this too but until someone actually offers local phone service in compotition then I don't think any Telco will have any respect for their customers. If you are the only game in town, then why please anyone? | |
|
|
| Don't forget, it was the actions of Attorneys General that took on the tobacco companies (NOT to debate that issue, please...), when for many years it was assumed that the tobacco companies were untouchable. This letter is important, because it marks a start, for better or for worse, of government action (read: possible REGULATION) of broadband services, specifically DSL. Is Washington the only state in the union with problems regarding DSL? Of course not. Is Washington's DSL subscribers the only ones who complain? No. Therefore, it it reasonable to assume that, with a sufficient amount of consumer complaint (which there doesn't seem to be any shortage of), more and more AGs will react, one way or another, to broadband access (specifically DSL). This letter should serve as a warning to ALL the idiots involved in providing DSL services: GET YOUR COLLECTIVE ACTS TOGETHER, OR THE "MARKET" WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO REGULATE ITSELF ANY MORE. Again, for better or worse, that is what will happen - "governmental oversite," "regulation," or whatever you want to call it. And having SOME standards of service isn't too much to ask for, like keeping scheduled appointments!! Moonpuppy: I agree with you that the RBOCs are monolithic corporate entities that care less about the consumer (hell, I used to work for one!), but that wouldn't stop me from complaining to my AG (hell, I've already done that, too!!)
Bottom line? If enough people complain, someone WILL listen. And if you think you've been jerked-off by the DSL experience (as most of us have), then you should certainly complain, and not just here on this site, but to the AG of your state, the FCC, your congressman (see if he/she takes campaing contributions from some of these companies!), etc. This DSL brou-ha-ha won't continue as it does now and survive - it must clean itself up, or someone else (like the government) will step in - for better or worse.
[text was edited by author 2000-09-15 17:41:33] | |
|
| | It's a good letter to put the DSL sellers on notice about unfair and deceptive business practices and false and/or deceptive advertising.
There is really nothing unique about DSL that requires that the AG's office get "educated" about the technology, beyond knowing what is being pushed to consumers and what the provider can deliver. Very similar to vehicle gas mileage claims that require "your actual mileage may vary." Existing laws can take care of this sort of behavior very well. Not much of a defense for them to claim "the dog ate my throughput."
As broadband pushes into the mainstream (which is what the providers want), they will come under increasing scrutiny for making claims and promises to the public they cannot deliver, under existing consumer protection laws. If they make false and/or outrageous claims, they will become the target of a public interest lawsuit somewhere or some state's AG filing an action.
I personally think it's great. More states should put these "broadband snake-oil salesmen" on notice. And more of us should complain to our state agencies that oversee such unlawful behavior so they will put them on notice. | |
| yazdzikPremium,MVM
join:2000-07-26
Honesdale, PA
kudos:1 | Dear Friends at DSL reports,
While there is normally a conflict between rational expectation and consumer hopes, one must consider in the case of DSL the unique circumstances of both the consumer and the providers. Without creating a false analogy, one might try to compare DUN with DSL.
The dial-up connexion runs over telephone lines which are mandated to have a line quality to carry voice communications at a level far below that which would provide even a decent 56k connexion. However, given a mean quality line, most people can achieve a satisfactory dial up. When that happens, the only provider other than the ISP is the local telephone company. The only problems, then, normally(that word again)encountered are with the ISP's servers, etc. Clarity reigns. The telco has no obligation to provide a line capable of data transmission, but reality is that most lines are usable. The ISP and the ISP alone is responsible for internet associated services. Given reality, a server down at, let us say, AT&T, is their problem and noone else's, in the experience of the consumer.
Viewing the experience of the consumer of DSL, on the other hand, leads an observer to see nearly impossible congeries of events which must coincide for a connexion to function. How many ISPs possess the financial clout to force COVAD or a Bell to deliver services? Therefore, the ISP writes, logically enough, swiss-cheese contracts. Without the threat of government intervention, however odious this may be, how will the consumer be assured that the service, among at least three partners will be satisfactory? DSL would work much better if the threat of cancelling a contract with an ISP had serious legal consequences for everyone from the local telco, ILEC or CLEC, DSL provider, etc.
In my own case, if Bignet is up, and Covad has a bad routing or bad card option, what will realistically happen to Covad if I drop Bignet, even were I to be able to terminate my contract without adversity to myself? My next ISP would still need a CLEC or ILEC. Likewise, if Bignet is to protect itself from liability for Verizon's problems, how could they possibly guarantee anything other than best effort? If DSL is not to be a joke, the owners of all two or three legs of the service must take joint and several liability for the service, and the contracts must be so written among the companies. Without a regulation requiring this, Bells are off the hook. None of the providers can force the others to supply. This creates, in effect, but not essence, the monopoly that Ma Bell had before the breakup. If the end user has problems, all three companies are immune from liability, not legally, but practically. Several liability as a matter of statute would correct this, and the only hope of the consumer being able to force business to behave in the consumer's interest is the might of the state.
If the state understood the nature of the partnerships, it would almost surely create a unique set of laws governing the unique nature of the beast. I, for one, am in favour of severe penalties for failure to provide services, since there is no economic incentive so to do. Since Bignet cannot scare Verizon, the New York State AG ought to. Until such time as the locals, and the CLECs, and ILECs, provide all ISPs the level of services they would have to provide if they were liable themselves for the service, they must be made to be liable artificially, or unbundling is merely a bad joke, played by incompetent lawmakers upon an uncomprehending constituency.
If the ISP cannot order a local telco rollout for a bad quality line, then let the AG do so. But for the partners who deliver the actual physical connexions to be impervious to consumer protection laws is both absurd, and the current state of affairs. The consumer pays the ISP; the ISP must have the legal authority to force its partners to help the consumer. As far as I am concerned, until all current lines are up to advertised speed and quality, no one ought to be allowed to take on new customers. Likewise, overbooking ought to be regulated. Only in this way will the consumer have the quality as well as the investor the profit. I do not advocate investors being unable to enjoy profit. The absolute impossibility, however, as it now exists, for a consumer to enforce a contract is obnoxious. "Best effort" contracts should be outlawed(and there is every argument to be made that they are void ab initio anyway.) The consumer should be guaranteed seamless service, irrespective of how many businesses are involved in the provision thereof.
No lawyer will allow Firestone exculpability because the tires were on Ford trucks. Should Covad be allowed poor routing because one buys XYZ ISP?
No educated person who understands DSL would expect 608k service to be 608; but the reasonable speeds of 500-ish should be enforceable. Noone expects sub 60ms pings for everybody. But no investor ought to profit a penny as long as one 608 customer is getting 200ms pings or 450k speeds. Elsewise contract law, enforceable since the time of Lord Mansfield, ceases to have meaning. Neither should an uneducated jury judge legal liability where there is no understanding of the scientific facts, nor should the same ignorance of facts be used to mask the illegality of the acts of the avaricious, unscrupulous businessmen who invest with an eye to profit without performance.
Basic contract law creates the obligations on all parties; ignorance of the technology obviates them. Let the law prevail, and those who understand it enforce it.
All good wishes,
Yazdzik | |
| | kraz2
join:2000-09-15
San Rafael, CA |  That's the Point
| |
|
dweeeb
join:2000-07-24
Port Orchard, WA | I live in Washington state and I think it is great that the AG is involved with this. Their office is funded with my tax dollars, and I want to be represented on this issue. Claims of 50 and even 100 times faster than a dial up modem is unreal. Unless you are still connecting at under 28.8. Most ISP's want a one year or two year contract when you sign up. It can be real hard to get out of these contracts when the ISP doesn't provide what you think they should. This letter informs the ISP's that the consumer has someone one their side when it comes down to disputes. I think that this is a good start. Fortunately, I have a good ISP. So far they have delivered on everything they said they would, and haven't had a outage yet. Only having DSL service for one month hasn't let me seen how they will do in the long haul, but I like what I see so far. Hopefully a nightmare won't start!! | |
| |  BrendanWarr Guitar is here
join:2000-07-14
Littleton, CO | About DSL advertisements...
*Pissed In Colorado* | |
| | | | Anon | Re: About DSL advertisements... Couldn't agree more!!!!, The guy across the alley has it, but USWEST said I am beyond the boundry for my central office. I even offered to pay to have them come out and test my line just to see what kind of speed I could get. They refused, then I asked if they could give me the "general areas" of where is a good location to get DSL, because I am planning on buying a house next year, refused again, for several wishy-washy reasons. I would have to turn on phone service at the new residence, wait a week then apply for DSL. At $55 an address for hookup this could get expensive as well as time consuming.
THANK YOU COX@HOME... ONLY HAD THEM FOR 2 1/2 WEEKS BUT i HAVE BROADBAND!!!!!
The phone companies need to realize that there will be a lot of competition, and DSL is not the fastest thing out there anymore. Watch out for Sprint, and Hughes, Direct PC (yep, just like Direct TV, can even use the same dish if you upgrade)and other Wireless Broadband coming to a location near you!
My solution- I went and got cell phones for each of us with all the goodies I use to spend $47 a month for, AND Free Long Distance, for about the same price... The plus side- I dont see US West in my mailbox anymore.
Mine may be only one household, but think about it, IF half the local telco users did this maybe they would Find a few problems to fix. | |
|
Anon
| Recently I moved to an area that is not exactly the best location to have xDSL, however with some misgivings I ordered service from IBS. I say misgivings because they havn't had exactly the best reviews. However I am willing to take the chance that I will be surprised, besides cable will be in my area soon and if I don't like what I see I can switch over. Even though the issues with security and shared bandwidth have exactly got me thrilled either.
Before the move I was with Verizon (Bell Atlantic). The service was passable, however it was better than dialup, but nothing that made me want to scream and say, "yehaw". Typically I was getting 380/40.
So I hope there are some controls and soon since it seems the industry isn't willing to monitor themselves beyond buck passing. Wouldn't be nice to get what the providers are promising.
-R
[text was edited by author 2000-09-19 17:02:29]
| |
|  aszure3You Only Live OncePremium
join:2000-07-11
Spokane, WA | All right they just need to jump on my isp/dsl providers ass. They can be a pain in the ass sometimes. I hope this letter works.
--
You only live one so make as much time for yourself as you can. | |
| | | hey...i live in wa state and Quest finally put in dsl but they haven't done anything and i'm quite pissed...i was susposed to have it june21st so i called to ask why...they said there was a pregain on the line and i couldnt get it"they checked there wasnt" so then it went to july 12th and that rooled around and it STILL wasnt there so called back and found out...hey it's now aug...i'm realy getting pissed and am about to tell Quest to shove there dsl up the A$$ cus they obsuly cant do anything right.....wonder why i want dsl the fastest i can dial up to is 26400bps.........i wonder | |
|
| |
|
