Am i wrong with this from eircom

greenshadow

Hello, since may 2010 ive been paying for 24mb broadband with eircom. i got the new modem and everything was fine. i started to get some problems with wireless dropping alot so i looked into it a bit, from there noticed that i only get 13mb download speed. i called eircom a few times and every agent just said different things, 1 said there was to much noise on the line and another said there may be a problem with the line outside. they never got back to me so i called again yesterday and i was told that my line can only take max 14mb.

Now i was being charged for 24mb since may 2010 so i called to complain about it, the first person i talked to said that sounds about right, so i said can i talk to someone higher then him, he put me to his super and the team leader. she went on to repeat the same thing over and over like she was reading it from a sheet, if you go over 11mb broadband then your being charged up to 24mb and there is no chance of getting a refund or anything like that.

I asked why was i not told this from other agents and when THEY suggested that i go to 24mb broadband did they not say the max my line can have is 14mb and all she said was yes we are sorry about that but that is how things work...

Now after all that (sorry for all the writing) they dont see it as a problem that i am paying for 24mb and only getting 13mb, they see it as im paying for up to 24mb and the fact i can only get 13 is just the way it goes...

First time poster btw and just wondering am i wrong in thinking if you are paying for 24mb then you should be getting alot closer then 13mb?

Thank you and again sorry for all the writing

Random

it's up to 24meg and dependent on your distance from the exchange and other factors. i suggest you see if you can downgrade to a lesser service if you don't feel the extra few meg warrants the extra cost.

Ms. Chanandler Bong

Unfortunately that's the way the contract is phrased I'm afraid. A quick look around the Vodafone & Eircom pages will confirm this, they specifically phrase it that you can get up to a certain speed but they don't guarantee you that top speed.
Yes, they should have told you what the maximum your line can take is when they were putting you up to the higher rate. They were obviously a little too busy selling you the higher rate to mention the cons associated with it. But there's precious little you can do about it now I'm afraid...
Yer wan (the team leader) more than likely wasn't reading it from a sheet she has probably had this complaint a few times now so has her lines off by rote. Again, looking around other forums will show you this "up to" phrase is a common complaint

the_syco

greenshadow wrote: »

i started to get some problems with wireless dropping alot so i looked into it a bit, from there noticed that i only get 13mb download speed.

Wireless, you say? What are the speeds when you have it plugged in via the Ethernet cable? I ask this as the wireless speed can be reduced by crap reception in your house, what's between the laptop and the router, etc. Do a speed test on wireless, and a speed test when connected by Ethernet cable, and tell us the difference.

roast

Up to 24mb.
If you're receiving less than that, it's down to the physical line itself, and well within the contract.

greenshadow

the_syco wrote: »

Wireless, you say? What are the speeds when you have it plugged in via the Ethernet cable? I ask this as the wireless speed can be reduced by crap reception in your house, what's between the laptop and the router, etc. Do a speed test on wireless, and a speed test when connected by Ethernet cable, and tell us the difference.

Ya i meant to put that in there, i get 6-7mb wireless and 13mb wired.

Im just fed up with calling them to see why is this and that wrong. if they had said to me at the very start your line can only have 13mb then i would have said yes thats fine i wont bother going with the 24mb then.

To add to this, my internet has gone off about 4 times so far today.

Can anyone suggest any other internet providers that would be worth a try?

dub45

Dsl bb (which is bb over a telephone line) has limitations which affect all provers and no matter which provider you go with you will have the same line from the exchange.

Any dsl customer should know their line stats and this will tell you what your line is capable of - you will then be in a postion to discusss your problem with your isp from a position of strength.

Higher speeds put more pressure on a line. You will only get the 24 if you are very close to the exchange and are lucky with your line.

Your internal wiring can also play a big part in the quality of bb you enjoy. Poorly installed extra extension sockets for example. Also remember line stats are not fixed and can vary - a line can be damaged by flooding.

If you have other items such as a sky box using a socket it is important to have dsl filters on them.

What are your current line stats?

Slick50

greenshadow wrote: »

1 said there was to much noise on the line and another said there may be a problem with the line outside. they never got back to me so i called again yesterday and i was told that my line can only take max 14mb.

If they can only supply you up to 14mb, then they are in breach of contract because they cannot supply you with what they sold you. They may think they have covered themselves with "up to", but if they simply cannot provide it, they cannot charge for it. They use these weasely phrases to fob people off when they have a problem, but if they sell you goods or a service it has to be fit for purpose and as described. Under the "sale of goods and supply of services act 1980", they cannot include unreasonable terms or conditions in a contract either. You would be perfectly entitled to go back and demand a refund for the period of time they have been charging you for a service they cannot provide.

dub45

Slick50 wrote: »

If they can only supply you up to 14mb, then they are in breach of contract because they cannot supply you with what they sold you. They may think they have covered themselves with "up to", but if they simply cannot provide it, they cannot charge for it. They use these weasely phrases to fob people off when they have a problem, but if they sell you goods or a service it has to be fit for purpose and as described. Under the "sale of goods and supply of services act 1980", they cannot include unreasonable terms or conditions in a contract either. You would be perfectly entitled to go back and demand a refund for the period of time they have been charging you for a service they cannot provide.

With all due respects that is nonsense. The products are all advertised as "up to". Eircom do not contract to supply anyone with a definite speed. dsl would make this virtually impossible anyway. And besides Eircom could in theory deliver the best possible signal to a connection box only for it to be compromised by dodgy internal wiring, filter and so on.

Slick50

dub45 wrote: »

With all due respects that is nonsense. The products are all advertised as "up to". Eircom do not contract to supply anyone with a definite speed. dsl would make this virtually impossible anyway. And besides Eircom could in theory deliver the best possible signal to a connection box only for it to be compromised by dodgy internal wiring, filter and so on.

How is that nonsense? They sell you 24mb broadband on a line that can only carry 14mb, but don't tell you that at the time of the sale. You accept that kind of rip off if you want, but irish consumer law means that you don't have to.

dub45

Slick50 wrote: »

How is that nonsense? They sell you 24mb broadband on a line that can only carry 14mb, but don't tell you that at the time of the sale. You accept that kind of rip off if you want, but irish consumer law means that you don't have to.

No they sell products like all ISPs of "up to"
No ISP will guarantee a speed on a consumer product.

And if there is a law to prevent this let's have chapter and verse?

I would be only too delighted to see it.

oldmantime

Slick50 wrote: »

How is that nonsense? They sell you 24mb broadband on a line that can only carry 14mb, but don't tell you that at the time of the sale. You accept that kind of rip off if you want, but irish consumer law means that you don't have to.

While you'd have to look at the contract for the specifics it's probably correct, charging someone for "up to 24mb" when their line can only support 13 (which is knowledge the salesperson should have) is probably sufficient to get out of the contract early but not much more than that.

Slick50

dub45 wrote: »

No they sell products like all ISPs of "up to"
No ISP will guarantee a speed on a consumer product.

And if there is a law to prevent this let's have chapter and verse?

I would be only too delighted to see it.

I have already cited "the sale of goods and supply of services act 1980", and the clause that states you cannot include unreasonable terms and conditions in a contract. Also under the merchantable quality clause of this act, goods or services sold must be fit for purpose as described and as durable as is reasonable to expect. If you want chapter and verse, look it up.

In this case they have sold a service that they cannot provide, over a network that they provide, which has insufficient capacity to allow them to do so. They should have told him about the limitations of the cable to his property before hand, not after. I am not saying he should be getting 24mb, I am saying they should have checked if they could provide what they were selling before agreeing to. To say that is the way things work, or just the way it goes, is nonsense.

oldmantime wrote:

While you'd have to look at the contract for the specifics it's probably correct, charging someone for "up to 24mb" when their line can only support 13 (which is knowledge the salesperson should have) is probably sufficient to get out of the contract early but not much more than that.

If you were inclined to follow it up, I would say you could go further than that, but it is usually to much hassle to be worth while. This is something that a lot of service providers count on, and in most cases they are right. But the small claims court is a simple enough option really.

roast

Slick50 wrote: »

How is that nonsense? They sell you 24mb broadband on a line that can only carry 14mb, but don't tell you that at the time of the sale. You accept that kind of rip off if you want, but irish consumer law means that you don't have to.

They have sold a package which is "up to". Even if the line was only capable of 2mb, then they are still selling you a package which is "up to 24mb". Theres no breach of a contract there. Of course, a DSL provider may show compassion and allow you to opt out, but there is no legal obligation for them to do so.

Slick50 wrote: »

I have already cited "the sale of goods and supply of services act 1980", and the clause that states you cannot include unreasonable terms and conditions in a contract. Also under the merchantable quality clause of this act, goods or services sold must be fit for purpose as described................

Does it not make you curious that if it was illegal for any DSL provider to advertise "up to" speeds, wouldn't they all be out of business??

bealtine

Slick50 wrote: »

I have already cited "the sale of goods and supply of services act 1980", and the clause that states you cannot include unreasonable terms and conditions in a contract.

Try this and see how far you get...and you'll need to test it the courts too

oldmantime

roast wrote: »

They have sold a package which is "up to". Even if the line was only capable of 2mb, then they are still selling you a package which is "up to 24mb". Theres no breach of a contract there. Of course, a DSL provider may show compassion and allow you to opt out, but there is no legal obligation for them to do so.

Does it not make you curious that if it was illegal for any DSL provider to advertise "up to" speeds, wouldn't they all be out of business??

That is untrue, that would be receiving something materially different than what you contracted for.

Also, people don't usually argue for their rights in situations like this, they'll just get told, calmly, by a customer service rep, that the contract says "up to" so the fact that you are getting nowhere near the correct speed is not their problem. An awful lot of people will accept that the person on the phone must know what they are talking about and is right.

Obviously, it depends on how vastly what you are contracting for and what you are recieving is different.

As for going out of business - there isn't enough real competition for that to happen, especially when all of them do the same (magnet and upc seem to be the exceptions but they have limited coverage).

roast

oldmantime wrote: »

That is untrue, that would be receiving something materially different than what you contracted for.

You would be receiving exactly what you were contracted for... Which is anywhere up to xxMBPS. I do see your point though, but unfortunately isn't enough to break a contract.

Slick50

roast wrote: »

They have sold a package which is "up to". Even if the line was only capable of 2mb, then they are still selling you a package which is "up to 24mb". Theres no breach of a contract there. Of course, a DSL provider may show compassion and allow you to opt out, but there is no legal obligation for them to do so.

Selling you an "up to 24mb" service on a line that does not have the capacity to provide "up to 24mb" is deception. And I wouldn't be depending on any broadband providers for compassion

roast wrote: »

Does it not make you curious that if it was illegal for any DSL provider to advertise "up to" speeds, wouldn't they all be out of business??

Not in the least. It is not illegal to sell an "up to" package on a line that has the capacity to provide it. Far to many people accept the sh*te they get from service providers because they are unaware of their rights.

bealtine wrote:

Try this and see how far you get...and you'll need to test it the courts too

I have cancelled "contracts" on the spot for similar treatment and cancelled their direct debits, they haven't been confident enough to try and follow it up, so I haven't had to.

oldmantime

roast wrote: »

You would be receiving exactly what you were contracted for... Which is anywhere up to xxMBPS. I do see your point though, but unfortunately isn't enough to break a contract.

Yes it is. a contract with such vague terms will usually be void for uncertainty. Also, selling someone a line of "up to" when said line is capable of nowhere near (by which i mean substantially less, not an insignificant amount less) is possibly a misrepresentation as well.

goz83

I have worked in telecomms and I can say that selling "up to" 24mb speeds is a common get out clause for the isp. They all do it and they make money on the bets that most people either won't notice, or won't make more than one phone call to let off some steam.

It doesn't strictly make it legal and it is a blurry consumer rights area too. For Eircom to sell the OP a 24mb package on a line that can manage just over half the speed is not what I would call "fit for purpose" and should not have been sold. It is reasonable to expect some fluctuation of the speed, but to have it cut in half is unacceptable, although common.

To put it another way; an isp could advertise speeds of up to 1000mb and get away with it on the same clause. They could argue that the speeds are possible, but that you would need to be hooked up to the exchange itself (but is is possible to get "UP TO" that speed). Why don't they? How many of you would accept 12mb speeds when you're paying for 1000?

The Eircom reps are very desperate to sell. I know from experience and the field reps are usually very desperate to earn a commission. I was once sold a contract with the promise that I would get broadband after I got a new phone line connected. So, a week after connection I phoned Eircom about the BB order and was told my line could not take BB. Funny, because the line was brand new. 1 week old as a matter of fact. They blatantly lied by telling me that Eircom had no BB in my community. My laptop was strangely picking up over a dozen Eircom BB signals from my Eircom BB neighbours. They then told me that I had to pay the previous owners outstanding bill before I could get service. One phonecall to Comreg changed that whole story and I jumped off the Eircom wagon for three years because of their lies. The Eircom joke of a service doesn't stop there, but that's all I have time for. I am sure I wrote about the billing problem in another post.

dub45

Slick50 wrote: »

I have already cited "the sale of goods and supply of services act 1980", and the clause that states you cannot include unreasonable terms and conditions in a contract. Also under the merchantable quality clause of this act, goods or services sold must be fit for purpose as described and as durable as is reasonable to expect. If you want chapter and verse, look it up.

In this case they have sold a service that they cannot provide, over a network that they provide, which has insufficient capacity to allow them to do so. They should have told him about the limitations of the cable to his property before hand, not after. I am not saying he should be getting 24mb, I am saying they should have checked if they could provide what they were selling before agreeing to. To say that is the way things work, or just the way it goes, is nonsense.

If you were inclined to follow it up, I would say you could go further than that, but it is usually to much hassle to be worth while. This is something that a lot of service providers count on, and in most cases they are right. But the small claims court is a simple enough option really.

Where exactly are the unreasonable terms and conditions in this situation?
You are making hysterical claims here and doing the op no favour at all. For example how could the op prove that the network has not got sufficient capacity? The network could have all the capacity in the world and the op could have lousy internal wiring or a dodgy filter which is causing his "poor" speed.

You will find plenty of posts on boards of people screaming blue murder about their lousy speeds and when the problem is explored it is often resolved through shall we say domestic factors (thats not to say there there are plently of legitimate complaints about speeds)

For example we do not know what his line stats are or what they were at the time of taking out the contract. Was bb being sold at that time in particular categories for example? Such as up to 5, up to 10 up to 24 etc etc?

Line stats are not constant they can deteriorate due to line damage, flooding etc.

We do not know the state of the op's internal wiring for example.

I would be the first to agree that isp's should be more careful in the products they sell to people and have posted on this subject before ages ago but there is no point in giving someone poor advice when the issue has not been properly examined.

In many cases here people post looking for their speeds to be increased when the isp has told them that their line is not capable of the speeds they want ironically enough.

And by the way as an expert like yourself should know cancelling a dd is an entitlement and hardly a blow for consumer choice.

Slick50

dub45 wrote: »

Where exactly are the unreasonable terms and conditions in this situation?You are making hysterical claims here and doing the op no favour at all. For example how could the op prove that the network has not got sufficient capacity? The network could have all the capacity in the world and the op could have lousy internal wiring or a dodgy filter which is causing his "poor" speed.

Are you seriously asking that? Do you not think it is unreasonable to sell an up to 24mb bb service to someone who's line can carry hardly more than half that at best, and tell him "ah but you can have up to 24mb". He has obviously been sold the wrong product. What hysteria? The OP has been told by "customer service" about the capacity of the line.

dub45 wrote: »

In many cases here people post looking for their speeds to be increased when the isp has told them that their line is not capable of the speeds they want ironically enough.

But here he wasn't told that untill eight months after they started taking his money.

dub45 wrote: »

And by the way as an expert like yourself should know cancelling a dd is an entitlement and hardly a blow for consumer choice.

I didn't claim to be striking a blow for consumer choice. I was giving details of what course of action I took in a similar situation, and while everybody in "customer service " was telling me "you can't do that", I did do that. And the reason I cancelled the direct debit was that they were going to contiue taking as much money from my account as they saw fit. And when they demanded payment I invited them to bring it to court, but they didn't because they were wrong.
We have very strong consumer laws in this country, and despite widespread advertising campaigns, people are either not aware of them or unwilling to persue them. But they are there.

Possibly have a look at these for more reliable info, or comreg as mentioned above...
www.consumerconnect.ie www.consumerassociation.ie www.nationalconsumeragency.ie

dub45

Slick50 wrote: »

Are you seriously asking that? Do you not think it is unreasonable to sell an up to 24mb bb service to someone who's line can carry hardly more than half that at best, and tell him "ah but you can have up to 24mb". He has obviously been sold the wrong product. What hysteria? The OP has been told by "customer service" about the capacity of the line.

Your hysteria sadly. As I have pointed out we have no knowledge at this stage of what the op's line is capable of or was capable of at the time of the sale. We have no knowledge of how bb was being sold at the time as I pointed out.

You wrote

Under the "sale of goods and supply of services act 1980", they cannot include unreasonable terms or conditions in a contract either.

I am asking you where those unreasonable terms and conditions are?

Slick50 wrote: »

I didn't claim to be striking a blow for consumer choice. I was giving details of what course of action I took in a similar situation, and while everybody in "customer service " was telling me "you can't do that", I did do that. And the reason I cancelled the direct debit was that they were going to contiue taking as much money from my account as they saw fit. And when they demanded payment I invited them to bring it to court, but they didn't because they were wrong.
We have very strong consumer laws in this country, and despite widespread advertising campaigns, people are either not aware of them or unwilling to persue them. But they are there.

And it would be helpful if you pointed out the relevant ones in each case rather than making sweeping statements which help nobody.

Slick50

dub45 wrote: »

Your hysteria sadly. As I have pointed out we have no knowledge at this stage of what the op's line is capable of or was capable of at the time of the sale. We have no knowledge of how bb was being sold at the time as I pointed out.

Ok. One last time, you don't have to accept it, but. We do know the capacity of his line, he was given it by customer service and he posted it in his OP. If he didn't know this at the time of the sale, the people in sales should have, and should have relayed this info to him.

dub45 wrote: »

You wrote

I am asking you where those unreasonable terms and conditions are?

One of the terms and conditions is you pay for the max download speed possible, in this case 24mb, on a line that is incapable of providing that. I would regard that as being unreasonable.

dub45 wrote: »

And it would be helpful if you pointed out the relevant ones in each case rather than making sweeping statements which help nobody.

You may have missed it, but I have posted it numerous times already, "the sale of goods and supply of services act 1980". That is the name of the relevant act.

dub45

Slick50 wrote: »

Ok. One last time, you don't have to accept it, but. We do know the capacity of his line, he was given it by customer service and he posted it in his OP. If he didn't know this at the time of the sale, the people in sales should have, and should have relayed this info to him.

No he didnt. the line stats will determine the speed potential and other domestic factors may influence that. We dont know any of those.

Slick50 wrote: »

One of the terms and conditions is you pay for the max download speed possible, in this case 24mb, on a line that is incapable of providing that. I would regard that as being unreasonable.

How many times do we have to remind you that with a dsl product you pay for "up to". And what you regard as being unreasonable is totally irrelevant. Also where is that term in the contract? What is to stop any isp saying that at any time due to varying conditons a customer is getting the maximum download possible?

Slick50 wrote: »

You may have missed it, but I have posted it numerous times already, "the sale of goods and supply of services act 1980". That is the name of the relevant act.

Merely posting the names of Acts is not especially helpful to anyone if you are advising them to take particular courses of action.

oldmantime

s44 of said Act

Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him, and

(a) the misrepresentation has become a term of the contract, or

(b) the contract has been performed,

or both, then, if otherwise he would be entitled to rescind the contract without alleging fraud, he shall be so entitled, subject to the provisions of this Part notwithstanding the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b)

as I said earlier, telling someone they can get speeds of "up to" when their line isn't capable of reaching those speeds could be regarded as a misrepresentation.

The following couple of sections deal with liabilities for damages which very few people are likely to pursue as the damages are likely to be minimal.

dub45

oldmantime wrote: »

s44 of said Act

Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him, and

(a) the misrepresentation has become a term of the contract, or

(b) the contract has been performed,

or both, then, if otherwise he would be entitled to rescind the contract without alleging fraud, he shall be so entitled, subject to the provisions of this Part notwithstanding the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b)

as I said earlier, telling someone they can get speeds of "up to" when their line isn't capable of reaching those speeds could be regarded as a misrepresentation.

The following couple of sections deal with liabilities for damages which very few people are likely to pursue as the damages are likely to be minimal.

And we have still to have any proof of the "misrepresentation". And remember hearsay is not proof.

Slick50

dub45 wrote: »

No he didnt. the line stats will determine the speed potential and other domestic factors may influence that. We dont know any of those.

greenshadow wrote:

]Now i was being charged for 24mb since may 2010 so i called to complain about it, the first person i talked to said that sounds about right, so i said can i talk to someone higher then him, he put me to his super and the team leader. she went on to repeat the same thing over and over like she was reading it from a sheet, if you go over 11mb broadband then your being charged up to 24mb and there is no chance of getting a refund or anything like that.

I asked why was i not told this from other agents and when THEY suggested that i go to 24mb broadband did they not say the max my line can have is 14mb and all she said was yes we are sorry about that but that is how things work...

dub45 wrote: »

How many times do we have to remind you that with a dsl product you pay for "up to". And what you regard as being unreasonable is totally irrelevant. Also where is that term in the contract? What is to stop any isp saying that at any time due to varying conditons a customer is getting the maximum download possible?

greenshadow wrote:

Now i was being charged for 24mb since may 2010 so i called to complain about it, the first person i talked to said that sounds about right, so i said can i talk to someone higher then him, he put me to his super and the team leader. she went on to repeat the same thing over and over like she was reading it from a sheet, if you go over 11mb broadband then your being charged up to 24mb and there is no chance of getting a refund or anything like that.

I asked why was i not told this from other agents and when THEY suggested that i go to 24mb broadband did they not say the max my line can have is 14mb and all she said was yes we are sorry about that but that is how things work...

What I regard as unreasonable may be irrelevant, but that is my opinion, what a small claims judge thinks could go either way, so! The OP will have to decide what he thinks. The price agreed is always part of the contract.

dub45 wrote: »

How many times do we have to remind you that with a dsl product you pay...

What's this we?

dub45 wrote: »

Merely posting the names of Acts is not especially helpful to anyone if you are advising them to take particular courses of action.

It's a good place to start if you wish to persue the matter further.

oldmantime

dub45 wrote: »

And we have still to have any proof of the "misrepresentation". And remember hearsay is not proof.

Two things, first, this is not a court, I have no reason to disbelieve what he says, second, him stating that he received a representation is not hearsay, it would be hearsay if it were a statement from a third party saying "op told me he received this representation".

dub45

Have you actually paused to check the Eircom website and see how they sell their bb products?

They appear to sell them in categories. So for the op to get the maximum potential for his line which given the speed he states that he is getting he had to be put in the up to 24 category. If he had been put in any other category (given the categories now on display) he would not have got the maximum speed that his line is now apparently capable of.

So if you go into some court where is the horrible wrong that has been done?

oldmantime

dub45 wrote: »

Have you actually paused to check the Eircom website and see how they sell their bb products?

They appear to sell them in categories. So for the op to get the maximum potential for his line which given the speed he states that he is getting he had to be put in the up to 24 category. If he had been put in any other category (given the categories now on display) he would not have got the maximum speed that his line is now apparently capable of.

So if you go into some court where is the horrible wrong that has been done?

I'm not mentioning any horrible wrong, I'm attempting to provide information that may be useful, telling the OP to deal with it doesn't help him. If he was informed his line would be capable of "up to" 24mb when he entered into the contract and was told afterwards it would only be able to achieve "up to" 13mb it's misrepresentation, he probably couldn't pursue damages but he can easily cancel the contract.

dub45

oldmantime wrote: »

I'm not mentioning any horrible wrong, I'm attempting to provide information that may be useful, telling the OP to deal with it doesn't help him. If he was informed his line would be capable of "up to" 24mb when he entered into the contract and was told afterwards it would only be able to achieve "up to" 13mb it's misrepresentation, he probably couldn't pursue damages but he can easily cancel the contract.

Again that is a presumption.

oldmantime

dub45 wrote: »

Again that is a presumption.

No it's not, it's based on probability having regard to everything that has been presented by the OP.

He could also, as I said earlier, possibly claim the contract is void for uncertainty seeing as it has no clear definition of the service that will be provided. I don't have a copy of his contract obviously but contracts for the provision of dsl are typically vague.

Edit: actually, the part of my post you quoted has the situation as I understand it (that's why I say "if" at the start of it) from the OP's telling where he was told he could get "up to" 24mb to induce him to enter into the contract and then was told he could get "up to" 13, IF that is the case he can cancel the contract.

dub45

oldmantime wrote: »

No it's not, it's based on probability having regard to everything that has been presented by the OP.

He could also, as I said earlier, possibly claim the contract is void for uncertainty seeing as it has no clear definition of the service that will be provided. I don't have a copy of his contract obviously but contracts for the provision of dsl are typically vague.

Edit: actually, the part of my post you quoted has the situation as I understand it (that's why I say "if" at the start of it) from the OP's telling where he was told he could get "up to" 24mb to induce him to enter into the contract and then was told he could get "up to" 13, IF that is the case he can cancel the contract.

If you read the ops post again you will see that he does not claim that an agent told him his line was capable of 24. He says the agent told him to go to 24 and this is the proper category for the potential of his line as best we understand it.

It is the op who is claiming that he is paying for 24. Whereas the Eircom website is very clear that the products are "up to".

For the op to make the most of his line he is in the right category so Eircom can claim that the original agent gave the right advice and put him in the correct category.

and when THEY suggested that i go to 24mb broadband

Also the op has used the service for 7 months without a complaint?

Hello, since may 2010 ive been paying for 24mb broadband with eircom. i got the new modem and everything was fine

It is a rare bb user indeed who never checks their speed in 7 months!

oldmantime

greenshadow wrote: »

I asked why was i not told this from other agents and when THEY suggested that i go to 24mb broadband did they not say the max my line can have is 14mb and all she said was yes we are sorry about that but that is how things work...

This suggests that they made a representation that the OP try their "up to" 24mb package.

dub45

oldmantime wrote: »

This suggests that they made a representation that the OP try their "up to" 24mb package.

And that is the category that best suits the potential of his line. What's the problem?

oldmantime

dub45 wrote: »

And that is the category that best suits the potential of his line. What's the problem?

I don't have a problem, the OP clearly does, I'm suggesting remedies.

dub45

oldmantime wrote: »

I don't have a problem, the OP clearly does, I'm suggesting remedies.

And therein lies my point exactly. Is a remedy needed?

oldmantime

dub45 wrote: »

And therein lies my point exactly. Is a remedy needed?

Well he seems to think so, I'm offering him what advice I can. From the knowledge I have of the situation, I'd say it's very likely he's entitled for numerous reasons to break his contract.

D1stant

When you are doing a speed test - what site are you running it from? and where is that site hosted relative to you?

Theres a whole host of equipment between your modem and that site, any of which may be oversubscribed and congested

But I *think* you do have a case if your modem will not train to 24Mbits. If so then they oversold you an unacheivable product. If the modem can train to 24, and you get less then thats due to DSLAM contention, oversubscription etc, and the contracts protects the SPs against that

dub45

D1stant wrote: »

When you are doing a speed test - what site are you running it from? and where is that site hosted relative to you?

Theres a whole host of equipment between your modem and that site, any of which may be oversubscribed and congested

But I *think* you do have a case if your modem will not train to 24Mbits. If so then they oversold you an unacheivable product. If the modem can train to 24, and you get less then thats due to DSLAM contention, oversubscription etc, and the contracts protects the SPs against that

But that is where they are covered from the very beginning. Even in the advertising products are described as "up to".

D1stant

Disagree


If the modem can only train to 14Mbits then "Up to" has no meaning. 14 is the theoetical max, and that if there is no contention anywhere between the OP and the ISP Speed test software. And if so then he was sold a pup

oldmantime

dub45 wrote: »

But that is where they are covered from the very beginning. Even in the advertising products are described as "up to".

It's already been asserted that such a statement isn't sufficient to exempt them from any liability in the provision of a service.

"Up to" as a contract term is probably too vague.

Being induced to enter a contract on the basis that you can get "up to" a speed and then being told you can't get "up to" anywhere near the speed is probably a misrepresentation.

roast

It's up to. Simple as that. I understand your frustration, but there is no misinformation, no breach of contract by the ISP, and no misrepresentation of services. Simple as, you have no legal case against them. :rolleyes:

Its not vague, in fact, its pretty specific: The max you will get is 24mb.


From my experience in the industry, I've heard these kinds of arguments before, and there is no getting around the two simple words: "Up" and "To".

This thread is getting full of crap. I'd highly recommend it to be closed.

oldmantime

roast wrote: »

It's up to. Simple as that. I understand your frustration, but there is no misinformation, no breach of contract by the ISP, and no misrepresentation of services. Simple as, you have no legal case against them. :rolleyes:

Its not vague, in fact, its pretty specific: The max you will get is 24mb.


From my experience in the industry, I've heard these kinds of arguments before, and there is no getting around the two simple words: "Up" and "To".

This thread is getting full of crap. I'd highly recommend it to be closed.

There is a probable case for misrepresentation, I won't say blatant because I can't be sure of the specifics of the contract or what happened afterwards, the difference in maximum attainable line speed is significant (approximately 50%) and seems more than can be reasonably expected.

As for the validity of the contract, the term "up to" is simply too vague by itself as they could provide you with 1bps and still be within it's meaning. The provision of services can't typically be limited by an exclusion clause in the style of "we'll give it to you unless we can't".

I'd also like to note I've broken contracts like this before on similar grounds, it never went to court, it's not worth an isp's time to chase you for at most a couple of hundred euro.

You can further make complaints to the national consumer authority if you feel you are not getting what you contracted for (http://nca.ie/)

Slick50

roast wrote: »

It's up to. Simple as that. I understand your frustration, but there is no misinformation, no breach of contract by the ISP, and no misrepresentation of services. Simple as, you have no legal case against them. :rolleyes:

Its not vague, in fact, its pretty specific: The max you will get is 24mb.


From my experience in the industry, I've heard these kinds of arguments before, and there is no getting around the two simple words: "Up" and "To".

This thread is getting full of crap. I'd highly recommend it to be closed.

And this is one fine example of the type of "crap", you don't know what you are talking about.

Perhaps the OP could clarify if it was pointed out to him that his line could not provide 24mb at the time of the sale or not. If not he was decieved, and can cancel the contract, simple as!

MunsterCycling

Slick50 wrote: »

And this is one fine example of the type of "crap", you don't know what you are talking about.

Perhaps the OP could clarify if it was pointed out to him that his line could not provide 24mb at the time of the sale or not. If not he was decieved, and can cancel the contract, simple as!

Three words sums this up, Pot, Kettle & Black

Slick50

MunsterCycling wrote: »

Three words sums this up, Pot, Kettle & Black

I've listened to this kind of "reasoning" before, with retailers and service providers telling me no you can't do that, or you have no rights. But I have not listened to them and proved them wrong, in one case in the small claims court. So I do know what I am talking about. All too often people put up with this kind of treatment, and accept sh*te service because it is too much hassle to do anything about it. But that does not mean they have to. I have posted links to numerous sites to confirm what I have said.

The bottom line is we do have rights and strong consumer laws to back them up. I have given the OP an honest answer, it is up to him if he wants to follow it up.

goz83

Slick50 wrote: »

I've listened to this kind of "reasoning" before, with retailers and service providers telling me no you can't do that, or you have no rights. But I have not listened to them and proved them wrong, in one case in the small claims court. So I do know what I am talking about. All too often people put up with this kind of treatment, and accept sh*te service because it is too much hassle to do anything about it. But that does not mean they have to. I have posted links to numerous sites to confirm what I have said.

The bottom line is we do have rights and strong consumer laws to back them up. I have given the OP an honest answer, it is up to him if he wants to follow it up.

Right ot Wrong it doesn't really matter. If the OP cancels his contract, they won't chase him for the money, but they will likely refuse the transfer of services to another fixed line provider. Also, there is the chance of receiving a bad credit rating if things get bad. It is a contract after all. If action is to be taken, it all needs to be done properly and recorded. Simply cancelling a DD won't make the problem go away, or it will, but you trade it for another problem.

I stand firm that "IF" the OP was not told about his line limitations, then he was mis-sold, even "IF" he is technically in the correct category. As it was already stated, the isp could serve you the lowest possible speed and still get away with it based on the "up to" contract. As consumers, we need to keep fighting to change this form of advertising/selling.

We also see this form of bully advertising with land lines and mobiles, where you pay x amount for "Unlimited Texts & Calls" only to receive a bill 5 times what you were supposed to pay and be told about a small printed "fair usage policy". They advertise IN BIG WORDS to say you get unlimited usage and then in tiny words, they vaguely mention a fair usage policy, which you have to further investigate. Scam! Thank god I don't use my phone that much, but young adults are being raped with this clause.

The OP (in my professional opinion) has grounds to cancel the contract properly, but he will have to work for it. If he wants money back, the small claims court is the only course of action. The office of the director of consumer rights should also be notified of this. I once brought a case to them regarding false adverting from "3" mobile and they were forced to change all their advertising immediately in the republic. It must have cost them an absolute fortune. All I wanted was them to legitimately cancel my contract, based on the misrepresentation, which they admitted I was sold upon. The proof was in the email (probably why customer care never respond by email). I was just one person, one regular customer who was treated like sh*te and wasn't accepting it. One person can actually make a difference if he/she holds their ground with good reason..

Slick50

goz83 wrote: »

Right ot Wrong it doesn't really matter. If the OP cancels his contract, they won't chase him for the money, but they will likely refuse the transfer of services to another fixed line provider. Also, there is the chance of receiving a bad credit rating if things get bad. It is a contract after all. If action is to be taken, it all needs to be done properly and recorded. Simply cancelling a DD won't make the problem go away, or it will, but you trade it for another problem.

Sound advice. Comreg is probably the first port of call for clarification, they may even make representations on your behalf, also consumerconnect. I don't know if they can refuse to transfer the fixed line to another service provider without a court ruling, can they blacken your credit rating without going to court?. So is it worth your while going to that extreme?, and if so, it is better to do it propely from the outset.

The small claims court is there to sort out consumer issues, and is relatively straight forward. You can make a claim online, it cost €15 to register a claim. You can get full details on the the "court services" web site.

Greenshadow, if you do decide to take this any further, do let us know the result.

goz83

They can refuse the transfer of services to another fixed line provider if:

(a) You are still in contract.
(b) Your account is not yet settled (you owe them cash)

I have seen Eircom cancel line transfers for outstanding bills as low as 12 cents. Another trick they have is when a customer is renting a phone, they can use that as reason not to transfer. There were a number of complaints made in 2006/07 about this tactic, so I don't know if it has changed.

I have also seen Eircom refuse to allow a customer to sign over to another provider, as a result of a previous tenants/owners outstanding bill at same address. Since deregulation, they have only changed with kicking and screaming all the way to the courts.

I don't think the OP should be taking drastic action, because he will not get better dsl speeds with another fixed line isp provider. I would advise caution in future. Ask ALL the questions, even if you think they sound absolutely ridiculous. As it has been shown, the obvious and the stupid is where you get stung. Take names and if it's not too much trouble, record the call and tell the rep you are recording the call for verification purposes. This way, you will be told the truth by any rep you speak to. Sounds extreme, but it will save your bank balance and give you peace of mind.


NOTE: I have worked for Eircom and Meteor (owned by Eircom) on the field. I previously worked on the field for Esat BT (now Vodafone). I have had extensive dealings with all the major comms providers and I am not biased toward any one provider. I am currently a UPC customer and although the service is good, it is not great. I am also an Eircom landline customer. I have seen the positives and negatives from most of the comms providers in my dealings with them as a rep and as a customer.