Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 73819	2006-11-02 03:32:00	Morons at the Commerce Commission	pctek (84)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
495989	2006-11-02 03:32:00	2 November 2006 Dear Sir / Madam FAIR TRADING ACT 1986 – XTRA NZ LTD – BROADBAND SPEEDS The Commerce Commission (the Commission) is investigating a range of complaints about claims made in broadband advertising . In particular, it is investigating the complaint you and others have made alleging that Xtra NZ Ltd (Xtra) has breached the Fair Trading Act 1986 in relation to representations made in advertising and information material about the cost and speeds available for numerous broadband plans . In general, complaints fell into two categories: § That the statement/s “Faster and Cheaper” and Faster Cheaper” were misleading because the plans were not necessarily both faster and cheaper; and § That the maximum speeds claimed were not either achievable or not consistently achievable . Complaints came from: § Existing Xtra customers who considered that the statements meant that their broadband would in fact be cheaper and faster than what they were currently on; and § Customers of other service providers who complained that their service provider was not able to meet the maximum speed that their plan stated would be available because of failures on Xtra’s part . We note that some complaints did not raise Fair Trading Act concerns because customers had been informed that there were limitations on the speed due to physical and technical reasons . These limitations were disclosed and therefore were known to consumers . Having now completed its investigation the Commerce Commission has concluded that, in its opinion, Xtra was liable to have breached the Fair Trading Act 1986 by misleading the public as to the characteristics of its broadband service by using the terms “up to” and “theoretical speed” in that: § Xtra could not supply the “up to” speeds promised on a consistent basis; and § the “theoretical speeds” were unobtainable . The Commission has also expressed concern to Xtra about using terms such as “Faster and Cheaper” and any combination of these terms that may mislead consumers as to what they can expect to receive, as not all service offerings will be both faster and cheaper . It should be noted that this is the Commission’s opinion and that only the courts can decide if the Act has actually been breached . The Commission has not determined what enforcement action is appropriate at this stage as it has a number of other, similar investigations underway into the industry’s broadband advertising practices . To this end, the Commission is in the process of meeting with all Internet Service providers . It will then consider what enforcement actions are required to best effect compliance with the Fair Trading Act . In the meantime, we note that Xtra has changed its advertising and no longer uses the terms “up to” or “theoretical” speeds . It has also stopped using the generic “faster and cheaper” representation in its broadband advertising where this is not true for all offered plans . Yours sincerely Greg Allan Manager / Senior Investigator Fair Trading Branch Wellington The problem is I know where the complaints came from because the idiot mass mailed the lot us and kindly allowed everyone to see each others email addresses . That really annoys me when people do that . :mad:	pctek (84)
495990	2006-11-02 04:16:00	I don't think a moron wrote that sensible, restrained and polite letter. Perhaps his knowledge doesn't extend to the finer details of email systems, and the difference between CC: and BCC:. More likely, perhaps, the use of CC: was a momentary oversight: I'd expect CC: to be the default setting for internal emails in the organisation. I know I commit occasional momentary oversights; I wouldn't call someone a moron for doing the same. :cool: I would be very surprised if that letter was not produced as the result of an internal email message reading something like "Get out a letter to get those whinging morons off our backs". :thumbs:	Graham L (2)
495991	2006-11-02 06:55:00	I would be very surprised if that letter was not produced as the result of an internal email message reading something like "Get out a letter to get those whinging morons off our backs". :thumbs: That's the sort of reply that got David Lange in trouble, calling some woman a shrew and she got the copy of the letter with that on it. Did the CC list include prflunky@xtra :P	PaulD (232)
495992	2006-11-02 08:03:00	Did the CC list include prflunky@xtra :P No . Anyway he got told off, he just resent it with Undisclosed Recipents, then sent another email "recalling" the first, then an apology . All Govt Depts have IT support, they'd know about BCC and you would think educate people before they sent mass emails . I just hate it, people do it all the time, then moan about spam .	pctek (84)
495993	2006-11-02 10:02:00	That's the sort of reply that got David Lange in trouble, calling some woman a shrew and she got the copy of the letter with that on it. Did the CC list include prflunky@xtra :P Someone did that to me once, and they ended up getting fired over it (although there were also other similar reasons too!). It is very unprofessional conduct.	rogerp (6864)
495994	2006-11-02 12:19:00	Not everyone is perfect all the time. "Even I, on occasion, am too modest." Stuff happens, and that is sad. As long as the offender is flogged, and exiled, we should just do our best to use dummy addresses when writing to dummies.	R2x1 (4628)
495995	2006-11-03 01:39:00	As long as the offender is flogged, and exiled, we should just do our best to use dummy addresses when writing to dummies. You might not think its a big deal but I like my personal email address to remain personal - not passed around the country for all and sundry to see. That makes me sensible not dumb.	pctek (84)
495996	2006-11-03 02:12:00	You might not think its a big deal but I like my personal email address to remain personal - not passed around the country for all and sundry to see. That makes me sensible not dumb. I think R2x1 was suggesting that when writing to the Commerce Commission (dummies) you would use a dummy address... Speaking as one who works for a government organisation, I can assure you that even though IT support exists, that's no guarantee of knowledge, less guarantee that the knowledge is passed on (education), and even less guarantee that the "educated" remember such wisdom when they're firing off emails left right and centre. Someone really clever once said: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." I guess it's fair to assume govt depts are subject to the latter. For the record, everyone here has been "educated" about the difference between To: CC: and BCC: but there are people who have yet to progress to mastering "this mouse-thingy"... :groan:	Lizard (2409)
1